Ron Moore speaks on why he left Voyager
Robin E. Cook
1942-1999
C. A. Brown <cjcb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38850621...@earthlink.net...
> Don't know if this is old news, but there is an new online interview
> with Ron Moore on the FANDOM news web site, in which he sheds some more
> light on why he left the Voyager staff, at:
>
> http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=57808
>
> He doesn't present the Voyager set as a nice place to work at. . . :-(
>
>
I'm not surprised. All evidence suggests that the environment there is
horrible. The staff turnover is very, very high. Meanwhile, cast are
complaining about bad writing and being pushed aside for Braga's girlfriend.
Based on his longtime collaboration with Braga, Moore probably
underestimated the situation there. Still, it's interesting to hear him
open up. It confirms a lot of things that were discussed on the Internet.
Here's hoping that Braga & co.'s days are numbered.
--
"God is a very busy god. He may not be there when you want Him, but He's
always on time."
> --
> C. A. Brown
>
> "Besides, the real Millennium is in 2001, not 2000."
> "Nobody likes a math geek, Scully."
>
> -- Scully and Mulder, discussing the year 2000; "The X-Files"
CDS218
Masked Man wrote in message
<388e1e93....@news.mindspring.com>...
>Masked Man----->But, this is in sharp contrast to what the
ensemble
>cast says publicly. Nice place to work...good
rapport...crack each
>other up...yada..yada...yada...Now I dont know what to
believe....
Believe that everyone involved in an ensemble show says that
to keep from being blackballed. Hell the original cast of
TREk probably said the same thing. "And Bill is very
gracious in giving screen time to others..."
CDS
Zathras
kemo...@skyenet.net (Masked Man) wrote:
> Masked Man----->But, this is in sharp contrast to what the ensemble
> cast says publicly. Nice place to work...good rapport...crack each
> other up...yada..yada...yada...Now I dont know what to believe....
> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> |I'm not surprised. All evidence suggests that the environment
> there is
> |horrible. The staff turnover is very, very high. Meanwhile,
> cast are
> |complaining about bad writing and being pushed aside for Braga's
> girlfriend.
> |
> |Based on his longtime collaboration with Braga, Moore probably
> |underestimated the situation there. Still, it's interesting to
> hear him
> |open up. It confirms a lot of things that were discussed on the
> Internet.
> |
> |Here's hoping that Braga & co.'s days are numbered.
Not necessarily. The cast are working on the studio sets, while the
writers would more likely wherever Berman & Braga's administration
offices are. Two seperate working environments- or more, of you count
the workshops where the props are made, the visual effects offices...
The cast are aware of the problems- they have to read the dreck that
comes down from above- but while waiting around for the next scene to
be set up, what else is there for them to do but clown around?
Z
"We live in an imperfect universe."
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Masked Man
Citizen G'Kar
Masked Man <kemo...@skyenet.net> wrote in article
<388e1e93....@news.mindspring.com>...
> Masked Man----->But, this is in sharp contrast to what the ensemble
> cast says publicly. Nice place to work...good rapport...crack each
> other up...yada..yada...yada...Now I dont know what to believe....
This is nothing to do with the cast - the offices aren't in the same part
of the Paramount complex. By and large, the cast do get on well (the guys
do, anyway)
--
--
"Oh, go away. Repress someone else."
Nelson Lu
Citizen G'Kar <Na...@allEXCEPTSPAMisurvey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>This is nothing to do with the cast - the offices aren't in the same part
>of the Paramount complex. By and large, the cast do get on well (the guys
>do, anyway)
Although, I do wonder, if Moore was overstated the case anyway when it comes to
writers. It's obvious that Moore feels betrayed by Braga. However, if the
Voyager writers were, as a bunch, that unhappy with each other and
back-stabbing, I doubt that Bryan Fuller would have taken the time to get Moore
a bat'leth -- a gift that Moore himself said that he appreciated greatly and
appeared to be very appreciative of Fuller and the crew who made the bat'leth
for. (Unless, of course, he felt that the bat'leth was the perfect symbol for
the back-stabbing. ;-))
SJohnson
>
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> CDS218 wrote:
> >
> > Masked Man wrote in message
> > >Masked Man----->But, this is in sharp contrast to what the
> > ensemble
> > >cast says publicly. Nice place to work...good
> > rapport...crack each
> > >other up...yada..yada...yada...Now I dont know what to
> > believe....
> >
> > to keep from being blackballed. Hell the original cast of
> > TREk probably said the same thing. "And Bill is very
> > gracious in giving screen time to others..."
>
> matters with much credulity. I mean, if it was true, would you *really*
> expect them to say "[ ] is a camera hog, [ ] is a vain bitch, [ ]
> is usually drunk before noon, and the minute this show is over I don't
> want to see these assholes ever again"?
You have a point, Steve-O.
But, as they say: Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
Yeah, I know: it's a well-worn saying... but as you- the professional
history buff- and *I*- the non-degree holding (but AVID) history whore
that I am- know so well: When this many people have been saying such
things for a long time (both as sneaky lil' rumors AND as out-right
statements by those rare bravehearts), then it's a reasonable assumption
that the press will get wind of this, do their own investigating, and
come up with the same conclusions.
I also happen to read a lot of the Hollywood- and sci-fi- press (as it
were <g>), and they all say the same thing-- about the dark atmosphere
on the set; the high-turnover rate of staff personnel, etc. in said
surroundings; the events surrounding the Moore/Braga incident; the
noncommittal-to-Trek-fans nature/behavior of the current group of Star
Trek "upper" staff; and on and on... and ON. *sigh* It really isn't a
pretty picture-- even though we're still getting our regularly
prescribed doses of ST: Voyager every Wednesday. Can't be anything
wrong, right? <heh heh>
I saw the 2-hr documentary on the "Three's Company" sitcom on "E" the
other night; many of the so-called in-fighting, bad-atmosphere 'rumors'
were immediately being dissed by ABC and the show's upper staff at the
time (no surprise, that)-- but, as most of the stars, upper staff, and
crew were saying at show's conclusion (and are now STILL saying for this
story), IT WAS ALL TRUE. *VERY* true.
The press (at that time) was *trying* to get this out to everyone who
would listen, but no one with a vested interest in the show
(advertisers, network suits, fans) would believe it. "They're only
trying to bring down this show, and we wasn't going to let them."
(Actual quote)
So I see a lot of similarities between the events shown in the "Three's
Company" documentary I saw the other night, and the events we're now
hearing about in this growing VOY drama-- from the press, the current
staff, the ex-staff, and the fans (both pro and con, and those in the
middle). All seem to blame the other side for hearing 'bad news' towards
the show or to their particular causes.
Similarities? ;)
Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. And it's sad, too.
SJohnson
Amarna
<reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Curtis Mayfield
>1942-1999
>C. A. Brown <cjcb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:38850621...@earthlink.net...
>> Don't know if this is old news, but there is an new online interview
>> with Ron Moore on the FANDOM news web site, in which he sheds some more
>> light on why he left the Voyager staff, at:
>>
>> http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=57808
>>
>> He doesn't present the Voyager set as a nice place to work at. . . :-(
>>
>>
>
>I'm not surprised.
I'm not surprised either. All evidence suggests that Moore is a prima
donna, and that he's the sort who would dirty the pond before he'd let
anyone else swim in it. He is someone who quit because another and
different show wasn't changed to match his own preferences. He isn't
likely to have an objective opinion about that show. All Moore is
demonstrating is his own lack of professionalism
-- Amarna
Amarna
wrote:
>Steve Christianson wrote:
>>
>> X-No-Archive: yes
>>
>> CDS218 wrote:
>> >
>> > Masked Man wrote in message
>> > <388e1e93....@news.mindspring.com>...
>> > >Masked Man----->But, this is in sharp contrast to what the
>> > ensemble
>> > >cast says publicly. Nice place to work...good
>> > rapport...crack each
>> > >other up...yada..yada...yada...Now I dont know what to
>> > believe....
>> >
>> > Believe that everyone involved in an ensemble show says that
>> > to keep from being blackballed. Hell the original cast of
>> > TREk probably said the same thing. "And Bill is very
>> > gracious in giving screen time to others..."
>>
>> Of course. I can't believe anyone takes celebrity interviews on these
>> matters with much credulity. I mean, if it was true, would you *really*
>> expect them to say "[ ] is a camera hog, [ ] is a vain bitch, [ ]
>> is usually drunk before noon, and the minute this show is over I don't
>> want to see these assholes ever again"?
>
>You have a point, Steve-O.
>
>But, as they say: Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
Not on the Internet. Smoke arises spontaneously on the 'net.
>Yeah, I know: it's a well-worn saying... but as you- the professional
>history buff- and *I*- the non-degree holding (but AVID) history whore
>that I am- know so well: When this many people have been saying such
>things for a long time (both as sneaky lil' rumors AND as out-right
>statements by those rare bravehearts), then it's a reasonable assumption
>that the press will get wind of this, do their own investigating, and
>come up with the same conclusions.
After years there is still no story there. That should make you think
there never was one.
>I also happen to read a lot of the Hollywood- and sci-fi- press
That's just one step removed from the Internet in credibility. There
is a lot of whining in the sci-fi press. Sometimes I think it's just
a bunch of people who can't do anything else and aren't happy being on
the sidelines.
>(as it
>were <g>), and they all say the same thing-- about the dark atmosphere
>on the set; the high-turnover rate of staff personnel, etc. in said
>surroundings; the events surrounding the Moore/Braga incident; the
>noncommittal-to-Trek-fans nature/behavior of the current group of Star
>Trek "upper" staff; and on and on... and ON. *sigh* It really isn't a
>pretty picture-- even though we're still getting our regularly
>prescribed doses of ST: Voyager every Wednesday. Can't be anything
>wrong, right? <heh heh>
It's probably hopeless to argue this issue, so I'll just say that to
me, having heard these mostly unsubstantiated rumors for years, they
sound pretty much like all the other conspiracy theories. They just
aren't credible.
>I saw the 2-hr documentary on the "Three's Company" sitcom on "E" the
>other night; many of the so-called in-fighting, bad-atmosphere 'rumors'
>were immediately being dissed by ABC and the show's upper staff at the
>time (no surprise, that)-- but, as most of the stars, upper staff, and
>crew were saying at show's conclusion (and are now STILL saying for this
>story), IT WAS ALL TRUE. *VERY* true.
You can make just about any group of people look either bad or good.
It's easy. There are almost always dissatisfied individuals who want
things done differently, and there are almost always people who are
happy with the way things are. That's life. Taking either group of
people and creating a mantra about the "truth" is feckless.
>The press (at that time) was *trying* to get this out to everyone who
>would listen, but no one with a vested interest in the show
>(advertisers, network suits, fans) would believe it. "They're only
>trying to bring down this show, and we wasn't going to let them."
>(Actual quote)
>
>So I see a lot of similarities between the events shown in the "Three's
>Company" documentary I saw the other night, and the events we're now
>hearing about in this growing VOY drama-- from the press, the current
>staff, the ex-staff, and the fans (both pro and con, and those in the
>middle). All seem to blame the other side for hearing 'bad news' towards
>the show or to their particular causes.
>
>Similarities? ;)
>
>Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
Like I said, not on the 'net. It might even be that the opposite is
the rule, i.e. Where there's smoke, there's usually ... just smoke.
>And it's sad, too.
>
>SJohnson
-- Amarna
BMJ
Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:c4lj8sggv0gmt749t...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:52:25 -0500, "Robin E. Cook"
> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Curtis Mayfield
> >1942-1999
> >C. A. Brown <cjcb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:38850621...@earthlink.net...
> >> Don't know if this is old news, but there is an new online interview
> >> with Ron Moore on the FANDOM news web site, in which he sheds some more
> >> light on why he left the Voyager staff, at:
> >>
> >>
http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=57808
> >>
> >> He doesn't present the Voyager set as a nice place to work at. . . :-(
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm not surprised.
>
> I'm not surprised either. All evidence suggests that Moore is a prima
> donna,
I wouldn't say that. He worked well with others on TNG.
> and that he's the sort who would dirty the pond before he'd let
> anyone else swim in it. He is someone who quit because another and
> different show wasn't changed to match his own preferences. He isn't
> likely to have an objective opinion about that show. All Moore is
> demonstrating is his own lack of professionalism
No one can say what took place the day he came and went except for the
people who were actually there. For all we know, Braga may have been a
complete a-hole to him and did everything in his power to drive Moore out.
Diane Duane
>... All evidence suggests that Moore is a prima
>donna, and that he's the sort who would dirty the pond before he'd let
>anyone else swim in it.
I know Ron,having worked with him (if briefly), and know this impression to be
incorrect.
Best -- Diane
Diane Duane / The Owl Springs Partnership
County Wicklow, Ireland
http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~owls/index2.html
Robin E. Cook
news:O$4lLUQZ$GA.247@cpmsnbbsa03...
>
> Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:c4lj8sggv0gmt749t...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:52:25 -0500, "Robin E. Cook"
> > <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Curtis Mayfield
> > >1942-1999
> > >C. A. Brown <cjcb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >news:38850621...@earthlink.net...
> > >> Don't know if this is old news, but there is an new online interview
> > >> with Ron Moore on the FANDOM news web site, in which he sheds some
more
> > >> light on why he left the Voyager staff, at:
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=57808
> > >>
> > >> He doesn't present the Voyager set as a nice place to work at. . .
:-(
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >I'm not surprised.
> >
> > donna,
>
> I wouldn't say that. He worked well with others on TNG.
He also worked well with the DS9 staff. Even when they had shouting matches
at story meetings, the DS9 writers always respected each other and remained
friends.
>
> > and that he's the sort who would dirty the pond before he'd let
> > anyone else swim in it. He is someone who quit because another and
> > different show wasn't changed to match his own preferences. He isn't
> > likely to have an objective opinion about that show. All Moore is
> > demonstrating is his own lack of professionalism
>
> No one can say what took place the day he came and went except for the
> people who were actually there. For all we know, Braga may have been a
> complete a-hole to him and did everything in his power to drive Moore out.
>
>
Well, he was a complete asshole to Moore and he did do everything in his
power to drive Moore out. Secret meetings that excluded Moore, nasty
remarks in story meetings, threatening to fire people who sided with Moore,
and breaking promises to involve Moore in the next series. That sounds like
a concerted effort to force his ex-buddy out the door.
--
I'd rather have a tempura in front of me than a temporal anomaly.
Amarna
wrote:
>
>Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:c4lj8sggv0gmt749t...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:52:25 -0500, "Robin E. Cook"
>> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Curtis Mayfield
>> >1942-1999
>> >C. A. Brown <cjcb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:38850621...@earthlink.net...
>> >> Don't know if this is old news, but there is an new online interview
>> >> with Ron Moore on the FANDOM news web site, in which he sheds some more
>> >> light on why he left the Voyager staff, at:
>> >>
>> >>
>http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=57808
>> >>
>> >> He doesn't present the Voyager set as a nice place to work at. . . :-(
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >I'm not surprised.
>>
>> I'm not surprised either. All evidence suggests that Moore is a prima
>> donna,
>
>I wouldn't say that. He worked well with others on TNG.
>
>> and that he's the sort who would dirty the pond before he'd let
>> anyone else swim in it. He is someone who quit because another and
>> different show wasn't changed to match his own preferences. He isn't
>> likely to have an objective opinion about that show. All Moore is
>> demonstrating is his own lack of professionalism
>
>No one can say what took place the day he came and went except for the
>people who were actually there.
Not necessarily even them...
>For all we know, Braga may have been a
>complete a-hole to him and did everything in his power to drive Moore out.
But of course it is also possible that Moore was a complete a-hole and
did everything in his power to take the direction of the show away
from what Braga wanted.
I don't really have anything against Moore, despite what I've said. I
just find all the Braga-bashing and Moore hagiography tiresome. I
personally don't happen to think Moore's writing skills are any more
impressive than Braga's. I've *seen* DS9, and I don't think it's
Shakespeare. I hated a lot of what they -- and Moore -- did to it.
That's just my opinion, and I understand that a lot of people strongly
disagree. Fine with me. But I'm tired of seeing Braga demonized.
This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
than they seem.
-- Amarna
Michele
I have heard that there is 3 sides to a story. Side one
(braga) side two (moore) and the third (the truth). A lot of
it is he said he said, so how do we know what is the truth?
BMJ
Or it could be what they both claimed, that there were "creative
differences". In the end, what matters is the product and not the politics.
> I don't really have anything against Moore, despite what I've said. I
> just find all the Braga-bashing and Moore hagiography tiresome. I
> personally don't happen to think Moore's writing skills are any more
> impressive than Braga's.
I just read the interview now. Moore doesn't make the argument that he's a
better writer than Braga, but he does talk about a way the show should
be/have been in a way that I prefer. Braga and Moore certainly have
different visions about what Trek's all about. I happen to prefer Moore's
over Braga's at the moment.
> I've *seen* DS9, and I don't think it's
> Shakespeare. I hated a lot of what they -- and Moore -- did to it.
> That's just my opinion, and I understand that a lot of people strongly
> disagree. Fine with me. But I'm tired of seeing Braga demonized.
One thing that really bothered me about the Moore interview was that Voyager
really doesn't have a message. At the moment, I can't think of anything to
dispute that. The writers put out some damn good episodes like "Tinker..."
and "Timeless"; they've also given us a few stinkers like "In the Flesh" and
"Alice". But in the grand scheme of the show, what exactly are the writers
trying to tell us?
> This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
> Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
> discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
> than they seem.
Conceded, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
C. A. Brown
>
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:52:25 -0500, "Robin E. Cook"
> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Curtis Mayfield
> >1942-1999
> >C. A. Brown <cjcb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:38850621...@earthlink.net...
> >> Don't know if this is old news, but there is an new online interview
> >> with Ron Moore on the FANDOM news web site, in which he sheds some more
> >> light on why he left the Voyager staff, at:
> >>
> >> http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=57808
> >>
> >> He doesn't present the Voyager set as a nice place to work at. . . :-(
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm not surprised.
>
> I'm not surprised either. All evidence suggests that Moore is a prima
> anyone else swim in it. He is someone who quit because another and
> different show wasn't changed to match his own preferences. He isn't
> likely to have an objective opinion about that show. All Moore is
> demonstrating is his own lack of professionalism
>
Maybe he's a prima donna, (most Hollywood types are), but, he's a
*smart* prima donna. He point's out all the problems with the show that
everyone here and on the Net have pointed out about the show, and how
Braga and Co, feel about it, in parts 2, 3 and 4 of his interview.
Part III (Technobabble): http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=61536
Part IV (Janeway, Seven, ect):
http://www.fandom.com/Master_Site/Editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=62110
All the complaints he addresses he's had about the show have been said
by *fans* of the show. (Like continuity, ect). He's not trying to turn
VOYAGER into DS9 (even says so). Just thinks it wont fulfill its own
potential, and doesn't understand why Braga and Co. wont try.
Like it or not, he *does* raise some interesting points . . . .
Nelson Lu
>No one can say what took place the day he came and went except for the
>people who were actually there. For all we know, Braga may have been a
>complete a-hole to him and did everything in his power to drive Moore out.
Extremely unlikely; if that was the case, Braga wouldn't have invited Moore to
join the staff in the first place.
The worst possible thing that Braga could have done that could reasonably be
inferred is acting as if Moore is simply an underling -- a lack of respect.
SJohnson
*You* are the one here who's making the assumption that it's all coming
from the internet.
Invalid point.
> >Yeah, I know: it's a well-worn saying... but as you- the professional
> >history buff- and *I*- the non-degree holding (but AVID) history whore
> >that I am- know so well: When this many people have been saying such
> >things for a long time (both as sneaky lil' rumors AND as out-right
> >statements by those rare bravehearts), then it's a reasonable assumption
> >that the press will get wind of this, do their own investigating, and
> >come up with the same conclusions.
>
> After years there is still no story there.
Yes, there is. I'm not as particularly happy about it as some people
are, but it is (are) story(ies) there. But I'm not surprised that you'd
say there wasn't one. ;)
> That should make you think there never was one.
Nonsense, considering my answer in the above.
> >I also happen to read a lot of the Hollywood- and sci-fi- press
>
> That's just one step removed from the Internet in credibility. There
> is a lot of whining in the sci-fi press. Sometimes I think it's just
> a bunch of people who can't do anything else and aren't happy being on
> the sidelines.
That's right: Blame the messenger (the press) for all bad news whenever
they happen to write a negative about your 'cause'.
That' rich, Amarna. <bg>
> >(as it
> >were <g>), and they all say the same thing-- about the dark atmosphere
> >on the set; the high-turnover rate of staff personnel, etc. in said
> >surroundings; the events surrounding the Moore/Braga incident; the
> >noncommittal-to-Trek-fans nature/behavior of the current group of Star
> >Trek "upper" staff; and on and on... and ON. *sigh* It really isn't a
> >pretty picture-- even though we're still getting our regularly
> >prescribed doses of ST: Voyager every Wednesday. Can't be anything
> >wrong, right? <heh heh>
>
> It's probably hopeless to argue this issue, so I'll just say that to
> me, having heard these mostly unsubstantiated rumors for years, they
> sound pretty much like all the other conspiracy theories. They just
> aren't credible.
Key wording: "To me"
A very true statement, that. ;)
> >I saw the 2-hr documentary on the "Three's Company" sitcom on "E" the
> >other night; many of the so-called in-fighting, bad-atmosphere 'rumors'
> >were immediately being dissed by ABC and the show's upper staff at the
> >time (no surprise, that)-- but, as most of the stars, upper staff, and
> >crew were saying at show's conclusion (and are now STILL saying for this
> >story), IT WAS ALL TRUE. *VERY* true.
>
> You can make just about any group of people look either bad or good.
> It's easy. There are almost always dissatisfied individuals who want
> things done differently, and there are almost always people who are
> happy with the way things are. That's life.
Uh-huh.
You, uhm, can cut the ol' Lessons From The Book Of Living(TM) bit,
m'lady... we're all adults here. We know what humans (both happy and
pissed off) can do at certain times and in certain situations.
I know it's hard to believe (based on the way you're sounding here),
BUT: There are such things (beings?) as unbiased reporters just doing
their jobs and finding the real story in certain "All Things Are Going
Well" facades...
Just ask Bill Clinton.
Just ask Richard Nixon.
Just ask Jessica Savitch.
Didn't mean to break that to you.
> Taking either group of people and creating a mantra about the "truth" is feckless.
Oh BOY..!
*Another* shot at the press-- this time, at a documentary team who made
one about that show... with interviews by both "sides", no doubt!
You GO, girl..! <vbg>
> >The press (at that time) was *trying* to get this out to everyone who
> >would listen, but no one with a vested interest in the show
> >(advertisers, network suits, fans) would believe it. "They're only
> >trying to bring down this show, and we wasn't going to let them."
> >(Actual quote)
> >
> >So I see a lot of similarities between the events shown in the "Three's
> >Company" documentary I saw the other night, and the events we're now
> >hearing about in this growing VOY drama-- from the press, the current
> >staff, the ex-staff, and the fans (both pro and con, and those in the
> >middle). All seem to blame the other side for hearing 'bad news' towards
> >the show or to their particular causes.
> >
> >Similarities? ;)
> >
> >Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.
>
> Like I said, not on the 'net.
While you and I (and a few of the originating items you're currently
'disputing') are actually on "the 'net" for this discussion, some of the
'bad' articles I've read (and some other posters-- who refered me to
same-- have also read) are from 'traditional' media (with the standard
denials from the Trek side, of course; they won't be doing *their* jobs,
iffen they weren't denying anything for the benefit of us avid VOY
watchers...) <g>
> It might even be that the opposite is the rule, i.e. Where there's smoke, there's usually ... just smoke.
Oh, that's *bad*, Amarna.
Iffen you're going to change/modify a well-known saying- just so it fits
your POV- at LEAST make up one that has a little bit of wittiness
a'goin' for it..! LOL!
SJohnson
SJohnson
> > <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Curtis Mayfield
> > >1942-1999
> > >C. A. Brown <cjcb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >news:38850621...@earthlink.net...
> > >> Don't know if this is old news, but there is an new online interview
> > >> with Ron Moore on the FANDOM news web site, in which he sheds some more
> > >> light on why he left the Voyager staff, at:
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=57808
> > >>
> > >> He doesn't present the Voyager set as a nice place to work at. . . :-(
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >I'm not surprised.
> >
> > I'm not surprised either. All evidence suggests that Moore is a prima
> > donna,
>
>
> > anyone else swim in it. He is someone who quit because another and
> > different show wasn't changed to match his own preferences. He isn't
> > likely to have an objective opinion about that show. All Moore is
> > demonstrating is his own lack of professionalism
>
> people who were actually there. For all we know, Braga may have been a
> complete a-hole to him and did everything in his power to drive Moore out.
*sigh*
It's *Amarna*, Fiver...
No one will ever get her to believe otherwise-- truth or NOT.
SJ
Citizen G'Kar
Michele <bel...@uswest.net> wrote
> I have heard that there is 3 sides to a story. Side one
> (braga) side two (moore) and the third (the truth).
'Twas in B5... (Sheridan and Kosh both said it)
Robin E. Cook
news:01bf6583$bd574ec0$LocalHost@lgwujvnl...
>
>
> Michele <bel...@uswest.net> wrote
> > I have heard that there is 3 sides to a story. Side one
> > (braga) side two (moore) and the third (the truth).
>
> 'Twas in B5... (Sheridan and Kosh both said it)
>
>
this story/Yours, mine, and the cold, hard truth."
JMS is a Don Henley fan? EEEEAAAAARRRRGH!!!
--
I'd rather have a tempura in front of me than a temporal anomaly.
> --
Amarna
wrote:
>
>Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:ivek8ssig38e2hum3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 10:22:39 -0800, "BMJ" <troubl...@jackass.com>
>> Not necessarily even them...
>>
>> >For all we know, Braga may have been a
>> >complete a-hole to him and did everything in his power to drive Moore
>out.
>>
>> But of course it is also possible that Moore was a complete a-hole and
>> did everything in his power to take the direction of the show away
>> from what Braga wanted.
>
>Or it could be what they both claimed, that there were "creative
>differences". In the end, what matters is the product and not the politics.
>
>> I don't really have anything against Moore, despite what I've said. I
>> just find all the Braga-bashing and Moore hagiography tiresome. I
>> personally don't happen to think Moore's writing skills are any more
>> impressive than Braga's.
>
>I just read the interview now. Moore doesn't make the argument that he's a
>better writer than Braga, but he does talk about a way the show should
>be/have been in a way that I prefer. Braga and Moore certainly have
>different visions about what Trek's all about. I happen to prefer Moore's
>over Braga's at the moment.
I also finally got around to reading the interview. It sounds to me
like the main problem is that Moore didn't understand who was boss,
didn't seem to realize Voyager isn't *his* show, and couldn't accept
that Voyager has a different vision from what he did with DS9. And
Voyager does have a vision. It doesn't have a lot of (meaningless)
story arcs like DS9 did, or long phony fantasy wars, but in my opinion
those are pluses for Voyager. It's episodic TV, just as TOS and DS9
were. That doesn't mean it has no vision.
I also have to say Moore *is* behaving unprofessionally. I don't have
time right now to go into that in detail. For now, I'll just say I'm
glad I read the interview, because it does show Moore to be a
disgruntled writer who couldn't accept that not everyone's vision of
what works is the same, and who couldn't adjust to being on someone
else's show. So what is he doing now? Smearing the show he left. If
he can't have it, he'll try to ruin it for others. That's practically
a definition of "unprofessional."
>
>> I've *seen* DS9, and I don't think it's
>> Shakespeare. I hated a lot of what they -- and Moore -- did to it.
>> That's just my opinion, and I understand that a lot of people strongly
>> disagree. Fine with me. But I'm tired of seeing Braga demonized.
>
>One thing that really bothered me about the Moore interview was that Voyager
>really doesn't have a message. At the moment, I can't think of anything to
>dispute that.
Well, DS9 certainly didn't have a message, at least not one that I
could ever discern, unless the show stood for the idea that mysticism
is better than reason, and war is more meaningful than peace.
>The writers put out some damn good episodes like "Tinker..."
>and "Timeless"; they've also given us a few stinkers like "In the Flesh" and
>"Alice". But in the grand scheme of the show, what exactly are the writers
>trying to tell us?
That we have a place in the future. That was the message of TOS and
TNG as well, but not DS9.
>> This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
>> Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
>> discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
>> than they seem.
>
>Conceded, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
The simplest explanation is that Moore is a malcontent.
-- Amarna
Amarna
>In article <O$4lLUQZ$GA.247@cpmsnbbsa03>, BMJ <troubl...@jackass.com> wrote:
>
>>No one can say what took place the day he came and went except for the
>>people who were actually there. For all we know, Braga may have been a
>>complete a-hole to him and did everything in his power to drive Moore out.
>
>Extremely unlikely; if that was the case, Braga wouldn't have invited Moore to
>join the staff in the first place.
>
From what Moore says in his interview, I think Braga deserves a medal
just for giving the thing a try. It's apparent that Moore intended
from the beginning to "save" the show by changing its direction. He's
lucky they didn't *kick* him out.
>The worst possible thing that Braga could have done that could reasonably be
>inferred is acting as if Moore is simply an underling -- a lack of respect.
-- Amarna
tom...@no.email.ads
it really is pointless who "is right". Moore could be a
persecuted brilliant writer, or a disgruntled hack. Braga could be a
great producer trying to save a show, or a backstabbing egotist who is
out to take the show down with him. we don't KNOW.
It does demonstrate that Voyager is in a bit of trouble with
political infighting. and THAT can be bad for a show, give a bad
working atmosphere. It destroyed Sliders. Will it destroy Voyager?
On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:30:48 -0500, Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com>
wrote:
Michael Hafer
I actually agree with just about *everything* Moore has stated about Voyager in
his interviews - the lack of continuity/direction/etc. BUT, Voyager was not
*his* show. Voyager is BRAGA's show. If Moore wanted to change the direction of
Voyager and that clashed with Braga's ideas, then Braga had every right to get
rid of Moore. No matter how much I agree with more, bottom line is, the show is
Braga's.
Michael Hafer
Amarna
wrote:
I finally got around to reading Moore's interview (the first two
parts). I have to say it is unprofessional for him to trash the show
after he has left, and that despite having such a supportive (and
non-objective) interviewer, he really came up with nothing of
substance. It's all innuendo. He does name two writers and say they
aren't happy, but then that's hardly unusual for television, and
coming up with classic Trek stories week after week (which DS9 didn't
have to do because it used "arcs") is a pressure cooker. It boils
down to one single point: Moore doesn't like Voyager and thinks he
can make it better. Others disagree. From Moore's own words I get
the distinct impression that he expected to be a co-producer and
couldn't deal with a lesser level of authority than he had on DS9.
Of course, such immaturity is hardly unusual in Hollywood. But be
that as it may, Moore is definitely not the injured party. And I base
that on his own words.
-- Amarna
Amarna
<cjcb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Amarna wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:52:25 -0500, "Robin E. Cook"
>> <reco...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Curtis Mayfield
>> >1942-1999
>> >C. A. Brown <cjcb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:38850621...@earthlink.net...
>> >> Don't know if this is old news, but there is an new online interview
>> >> with Ron Moore on the FANDOM news web site, in which he sheds some more
>> >> light on why he left the Voyager staff, at:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=57808
>> >>
>> >> He doesn't present the Voyager set as a nice place to work at. . . :-(
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >I'm not surprised.
>>
>> I'm not surprised either. All evidence suggests that Moore is a prima
>> donna, and that he's the sort who would dirty the pond before he'd let
>> anyone else swim in it. He is someone who quit because another and
>> different show wasn't changed to match his own preferences. He isn't
>> likely to have an objective opinion about that show. All Moore is
>> demonstrating is his own lack of professionalism
>>
>> -- Amarna
>
>
>
>Maybe he's a prima donna, (most Hollywood types are), but, he's a
>*smart* prima donna. He point's out all the problems with the show that
>everyone here and on the Net have pointed out about the show, and how
>Braga and Co, feel about it, in parts 2, 3 and 4 of his interview.
"Everyone here and on the Net" doesn't agree. I hated what Moore and
others did to DS9 in its last two or three years, and I thought the
series finale was one of the worst messes I ever saw on television.
Frankly, I think they ran out of ideas long before the series ended.
Voyager, on the other hand, is much more like classic Trek, which is
by the way infinitely harder to write than fantasy mysticism and phony
arcs that glorify war. Most of the shows don't succeed, but that was
true of TOS as well. Very few were really memorable. As for TNG, I
think it is way overrated, but even if I loved it, I'd have to point
out that it was pretty much the only game in town then (as was TOS).
>
>Part II: http://www.fandom.com/master_site/Editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=60714&type_id=13031&cat_id=13035&sub_id=36240
>
>
>Part III (Technobabble): http://www.fandom.com/master_site/editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=61536
>
>Part IV (Janeway, Seven, ect):
>http://www.fandom.com/Master_Site/Editorial.asp?action=page&obj_id=62110
>
>All the complaints he addresses he's had about the show have been said
>by *fans* of the show. (Like continuity, ect). He's not trying to turn
>VOYAGER into DS9 (even says so). Just thinks it wont fulfill its own
>potential, and doesn't understand why Braga and Co. wont try.
>
>Like it or not, he *does* raise some interesting points . . . .
-- Amarna
Amarna
>
> it really is pointless who "is right". Moore could be a
>persecuted brilliant writer, or a disgruntled hack. Braga could be a
>great producer trying to save a show, or a backstabbing egotist who is
>out to take the show down with him. we don't KNOW.
> It does demonstrate that Voyager is in a bit of trouble with
>political infighting. and THAT can be bad for a show, give a bad
>working atmosphere. It destroyed Sliders. Will it destroy Voyager?
I don't think so, but it can't be helpful. That's why I think Moore's
behavior is unprofessional.
>
>
>On Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:30:48 -0500, Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>>I also have to say Moore *is* behaving unprofessionally.
-- Amarna
Lisa
"Michele" <bel...@uswest.net> wrote in message
<<SNIPPING>>
> I have heard that there is 3 sides to a story. Side one
> (braga) side two (moore) and the third (the truth). A lot of
> it is he said he said, so how do we know what is the truth?
Very wise words indeed.
--
Lisa
"Regret is a part of being alive, but keep it a small part"
"As you do?"
"Demonstrably"
BMJ
I think that's part of the problem. Classic Trek had almost *no* character
development, and I think that when all's said and done this is what's important.
Sure, you get the development in Seven, the Doc, and Janeway, but about the
other characters? In DS9, I could see the evolution of all the main and
recurring characters. Voyager doesn't have to be about war to be good, but as
Moore said, it *does* have to be about the characters. If you fail there, then
you might as well give up.
>which is
>by the way infinitely harder to write than fantasy mysticism and phony
>arcs that glorify war.
I think that it's much harder to write with continuity. The rewards are
greater, IMESAO. Just take a look at the most critically acclaimed dramas on TV
and you'll see what I mean.
>Most of the shows don't succeed, but that was
>true of TOS as well. Very few were really memorable. As for TNG, I
>think it is way overrated, but even if I loved it, I'd have to point
>out that it was pretty much the only game in town then (as was TOS).
Personally, I think that one of the main reasons for TNG's success was Patrick
Stewart's acting ability. Sadly, none of the actors on Voyager really move me
as much. I wonder if other critics of the show feel the same.
P.C. Kilinskas
Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 10:22:39 -0800, "BMJ" <troubl...@jackass.com>
>wrote:
>>For all we know, Braga may have been a
>>complete a-hole to him and did everything in his power to drive Moore out.
>
>did everything in his power to take the direction of the show away
>from what Braga wanted.
Wow, are you implying you believe Braga actually has a direction in
mind for the show? Care to share with us what you think that might be? :)
>I don't really have anything against Moore, despite what I've said. I
>just find all the Braga-bashing and Moore hagiography tiresome. I
>personally don't happen to think Moore's writing skills are any more
>impressive than Braga's. I've *seen* DS9, and I don't think it's
>Shakespeare. I hated a lot of what they -- and Moore -- did to it.
>That's just my opinion, and I understand that a lot of people strongly
>disagree. Fine with me. But I'm tired of seeing Braga demonized.
Moore's comments seem dead-on to me; regardless, though, it's obvious
just by reading the issues he raises that he's given a great deal
of thought on what's wrong with Voyager. I've only seen parts 1 and 4
of the interview, but he pointed out several fairly obvious problems
with the show that Braga and Co. have been unwilling or unable to bring
themselves to address.
>This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
>Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
>discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
>than they seem.
True, but then, we do have some impartial evidence: several hundred
episodes of DS9 and Voyager. :)
Phil
--
p...@cse.buffalo.edu
Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying.
Baba Ram Dass (b.1931)
P.C. Kilinskas
Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:35:47 -0800, "BMJ" <troubl...@jackass.com>
>wrote:
>>The writers put out some damn good episodes like "Tinker..."
>>and "Timeless"; they've also given us a few stinkers like "In the Flesh" and
>>"Alice". But in the grand scheme of the show, what exactly are the writers
>>trying to tell us?
>
>That we have a place in the future. That was the message of TOS and
>TNG as well, but not DS9.
Ah, so this is the ever-so-deep message of Voyager? That's about on
par with the "message" Matt Groening's Futurama gives us.
>>> This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
>>> Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
>>> discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
>>> than they seem.
>>
>>Conceded, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
>
>The simplest explanation is that Moore is a malcontent.
From his interview, he seems to have good reason.
C. A. Brown
Agreed. With all the stylistic things Voyager has to offer, (Moore's
right about it being one of the most stylist Trek shows), the characters
always seem to take, at least, second place to that . . .
> >which is
> >by the way infinitely harder to write than fantasy mysticism and phony
> >arcs that glorify war.
>
> I think that it's much harder to write with continuity.
*Character* continuity, IMO, isn't (or shouldn't) be that hard to
maintain as story continuity. I'm more angry when Voyager has someone
act out-of-character than when they ignore or contradict a plot point
they may have mentioned a few weeks back.
The rewards are
> greater, IMESAO. Just take a look at the most critically acclaimed dramas on TV
> and you'll see what I mean.
>
> >Most of the shows don't succeed, but that was
> >true of TOS as well. Very few were really memorable. As for TNG, I
> >think it is way overrated, but even if I loved it, I'd have to point
> >out that it was pretty much the only game in town then (as was TOS).
>
> Personally, I think that one of the main reasons for TNG's success was Patrick
> Stewart's acting ability. Sadly, none of the actors on Voyager really move me
> as much. I wonder if other critics of the show feel the same.
A few have now and then IMO. If Braga and Co. would allow some of them
to push the envelope more, (and allow the same with the stories), I'm
sure they could often. I like what Ron said about Kate -- something to
the effect of why don't they (TPTB) use her vivacity more.
Think if they gave Janeway a story like "Chain of Command II"? What if
one of the other characters had an episode like "Inner Light"? I feel
most of the actors are good enough to move me with a performance, but if
they don't get a *story* to go along with it, some with big emotional
impact, then they're only so much they can do . . . .
--
Lisa
That really nice guy "BMJ" wrote in message
news:86i7a5$1n...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Personally, I think that one of the main reasons for TNG's success was
Patrick
> Stewart's acting ability. Sadly, none of the actors on Voyager really
move me
> as much. I wonder if other critics of the show feel the same.
>
I would have to agree with you there, Patrick Stewart and also Brent Spiner
were both exceptional actors, but Patrick has that charisma and ability to
hold together any scene that he is in. I don't think any of the Voyager
actors can carry it off the way he did.
Not too sure about DS9, because none of the actors stood out as being
excellent, but none of the regular cast stood out as bad (not including
Nicole de Boer who I thought was dreadful) whereas I would have to question
a fair bit of the acting on Voyager.
Michele
I have to agree on the Patrick and Brent comments. (they
also had a lot of acting experience) I think their
characters were also put in a lot of dramatic situations.
There was a lot of character development. Now I wish they
had done it for the others also. I never really got into the
Deep space nine show like I did with TNG and Voyager. I
think the Voyager cast is very good, despite probably a lack
of a lot scenes of them doing things.
Michele
BMJ
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:35:47 -0800, "BMJ" <troubl...@jackass.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I don't really have anything against Moore, despite what I've said. I
> >> just find all the Braga-bashing and Moore hagiography tiresome. I
> >> personally don't happen to think Moore's writing skills are any more
> >> impressive than Braga's.
> >
> >I just read the interview now. Moore doesn't make the argument that he's
a
> >better writer than Braga, but he does talk about a way the show should
> >be/have been in a way that I prefer. Braga and Moore certainly have
> >different visions about what Trek's all about. I happen to prefer
Moore's
> >over Braga's at the moment.
>
> I also finally got around to reading the interview. It sounds to me
> like the main problem is that Moore didn't understand who was boss,
> didn't seem to realize Voyager isn't *his* show, and couldn't accept
> that Voyager has a different vision from what he did with DS9.
I think he accepted that the premise of the show is definitely different
from DS9's, so it's hard for me to think that he had a problem with the
vision *just because* it was different. He actually pointed out a lot of
flaws that made sense. For example, it *does* seem more plausible that
after even 3 years, the ship would have developed a culture distinct from
either SF or Maquis. That's just basic anthropology.
> And
> Voyager does have a vision. It doesn't have a lot of (meaningless)
> story arcs like DS9 did, or long phony fantasy wars, but in my opinion
> those are pluses for Voyager.
See, that's another thing I don't completely agree with. I've been able to
understand DS9's message, and I don't think the wars were particularly
phony, at least not more so than any other fictional war. Again, I
emphasize that Voyager doesn't need another war to make it great. All it
needs is to focus on its characters and other good things should fall into
place.
> It's episodic TV, just as TOS and DS9 were. That doesn't mean it has no
vision.
It may have a vision, but it's been hard for me to discern it. It could be
just that the approach the Voyager PTB uses just doesn't work with me.
> I also have to say Moore *is* behaving unprofessionally. I don't have
> time right now to go into that in detail. For now, I'll just say I'm
> glad I read the interview, because it does show Moore to be a
> disgruntled writer who couldn't accept that not everyone's vision of
> what works is the same, and who couldn't adjust to being on someone
> else's show. So what is he doing now? Smearing the show he left. If
> he can't have it, he'll try to ruin it for others. That's practically
> a definition of "unprofessional."
Could be, but I'm not sure. He actually said the many of the same things a
lot of Voyager critics in the Trek community have been saying, and I doubt
that they want to see Trek die. I think in Moore's mind, it might be better
to slam Voyager now in order to save Trek in the near future. Just focusing
on the merits of his critique rather than whether he's being professional,
I'd say that most of what he argued *should* be taken to heart by the next
show's PTB.
> >
> >> I've *seen* DS9, and I don't think it's
> >> Shakespeare. I hated a lot of what they -- and Moore -- did to it.
> >> That's just my opinion, and I understand that a lot of people strongly
> >> disagree. Fine with me. But I'm tired of seeing Braga demonized.
> >
> >One thing that really bothered me about the Moore interview was that
Voyager
> >really doesn't have a message. At the moment, I can't think of anything
to
> >dispute that.
>
> Well, DS9 certainly didn't have a message, at least not one that I
> could ever discern, unless the show stood for the idea that mysticism
> is better than reason, and war is more meaningful than peace.
The way I saw it, the message was about spirituality's importance in society
rather than choosing mysticism over reason. I admire spirituality in
people, so that gives me a bias there. As far as war being more meaningful
than peace, I'm not sure what episode could have given that impression.
Maybe the messagethat you're seeing (beginning with a newly liberated Bajor
and ending with the Dominion War) was that a war for freedom was preferable
to a peace in under tyranny. That's something I could agree with.
> >The writers put out some damn good episodes like "Tinker..."
> >and "Timeless"; they've also given us a few stinkers like "In the Flesh"
and
> >"Alice". But in the grand scheme of the show, what exactly are the
writers
> >trying to tell us?
>
> That we have a place in the future. That was the message of TOS and
> TNG as well, but not DS9.
DS9 tweaked it a bit. We still have a place in the future, but we can never
stop working for it, and we have to be willing to sacrifice a lot in order
to secure it. We're on the path to great things, but nothing will ever be
guaranteed.
> >> This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
> >> Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
> >> discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
> >> than they seem.
> >
> >Conceded, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
>
> The simplest explanation is that Moore is a malcontent.
Or that Braga's an a-hole. But I think the simplest yet is that it was
never meant to be.
BMJ
Lisa <dug...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:86ilkp$3tl$1...@apple.news.easynet.net...
>
> That really nice guy "BMJ" wrote in message
> news:86i7a5$1n...@drn.newsguy.com...
[blush]
> > Personally, I think that one of the main reasons for TNG's success was
> Patrick
> > Stewart's acting ability. Sadly, none of the actors on Voyager really
> move me
> > as much. I wonder if other critics of the show feel the same.
> >
>
> I would have to agree with you there, Patrick Stewart and also Brent
Spiner
> were both exceptional actors, but Patrick has that charisma and ability to
> hold together any scene that he is in. I don't think any of the Voyager
> actors can carry it off the way he did.
Neither do I. They're OK, but they're not good enough to carry a show.
> Not too sure about DS9, because none of the actors stood out as being
> excellent, but none of the regular cast stood out as bad (not including
> Nicole de Boer who I thought was dreadful) whereas I would have to
question
> a fair bit of the acting on Voyager.
I liked the stories better than the other Treks. They have good actors too,
but they didn't need to carry the show on their own abilites.
David B.
> > It does demonstrate that Voyager is in a bit of trouble with
> >political infighting. and THAT can be bad for a show, give a bad
> >working atmosphere. It destroyed Sliders. Will it destroy Voyager?
Can anyone honestly compare Voyager to Sliders for one second?
--
Dennis Miller on the Millennium: "Whorin' and warrin' but never borin'."
Micheal Keane
<86ide5$b5c$1...@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>...
>Ah, so this is the ever-so-deep message of Voyager? That's about on
>par with the "message" Matt Groening's Futurama gives us.
I think it's insulting to compare Voyager to Futurama...
insulting to Futurama, that is!
[rim shot]
[laugh track]
Michael Hafer
>excellent, but none of the regular cast stood out as bad (not including
>Nicole de Boer who I thought was dreadful) whereas I would have to question
>a fair bit of the acting on Voyager.
I personally liked Ezri better than Jadzia. Ezri at least *had room* for
development, although the writers, as usual, bungled that prospect. Jadzia
always seemed to me to be the typical party chick/life of the party wannabe.
Sure, the character was smart, sexy, and intelligent, but she Terry Ferrell the
actor could never pull it off.
Michael Hafer
Julianna Feigl
>
> I think that's part of the problem. Classic Trek had almost *no* character
> development,
You trying to troll me or what????????
> and I think that when all's said and done this is what's important.
> Sure, you get the development in Seven, the Doc, and Janeway, but about the
> other characters? In DS9, I could see the evolution of all the main and
> recurring characters. Voyager doesn't have to be about war to be good, but as
> Moore said, it *does* have to be about the characters.
It is. About the *boring* characters, played by mediocre to bad actors,
such as the Tommies and Chuckles of this world...
> If you fail there, then
> you might as well give up.
>
if only....
<snip>
> Personally, I think that one of the main reasons for TNG's success was Patrick
> Stewart's acting ability. Sadly, none of the actors on Voyager really move me
> as much.
Those that do get the opportunities, don't.... some are not given a
chance *ever* :-((((((((((((((((((((((((((
> I wonder if other critics of the show feel the same.
Julianna
--------
Tuvok:
The main reason to watch Voyager!
Amarna
wrote:
>In article <kr9m8s0llsq00jjfs...@4ax.com>,
>Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 17:35:47 -0800, "BMJ" <troubl...@jackass.com>
>>wrote:
>[snip]
>>>The writers put out some damn good episodes like "Tinker..."
>>>and "Timeless"; they've also given us a few stinkers like "In the Flesh" and
>>>"Alice". But in the grand scheme of the show, what exactly are the writers
>>>trying to tell us?
>>
>>That we have a place in the future. That was the message of TOS and
>>TNG as well, but not DS9.
>
>Ah, so this is the ever-so-deep message of Voyager? That's about on
>par with the "message" Matt Groening's Futurama gives us.
It is also on a par with TOS, TNG, and DS9. We aren't talking about
Shakespeare here. Even so, Voyager has challenged its viewers much
more than the previous three, e.g. "Tuvix."
>
>>>> This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
>>>> Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
>>>> discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
>>>> than they seem.
>>>
>>>Conceded, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
>>
>>The simplest explanation is that Moore is a malcontent.
>
>From his interview, he seems to have good reason.
Seriously, I suggest that anyone who finds that interview persuasive
should read it again, with a more critical eye. There is almost no
substance and Moore is conveniently reticent about everything
rebuttable.
>Phil
-- Amarna
Amarna
wrote:
I disagree, but more important, look at what Moore *did* write. I
understand he had a hand in "Barge of the Dead" and "Survival
Instinct." Those were classic DS9 stories. "Barge..." was about
Torres but didn't have much universal meaning, other than that we
should all grow up. You could say almost the same about "Survival
Instinct," except that it was about Seven. So, that amounts to more
Klingon foolishness and more Borg "culture." What's so special about
that?
Just because you dislike the same things he does doesn't prove him
right. That in no way invalidates the views of others who disagree.
Frankly, the discontented former fans (for lack of a better term) will
naturally glom on to whatever anyone says against the show. That
proves nothing. It reminds me of some of the Kennedy conspiracy
theories.
>I think in Moore's mind, it might be better
>to slam Voyager now in order to save Trek in the near future.
See...that's just what I was talking about in one of my other posts.
Voyager does not need to be "saved," least of all by someone who was a
major factor in ruining DS9 (which never was really Trek anyway).
> Just focusing
>on the merits of his critique rather than whether he's being professional,
>I'd say that most of what he argued *should* be taken to heart by the next
>show's PTB.
I did focus on it. There was nothing there but carping and jealousy.
It was petty.
>
>> >
>> >> I've *seen* DS9, and I don't think it's
>> >> Shakespeare. I hated a lot of what they -- and Moore -- did to it.
>> >> That's just my opinion, and I understand that a lot of people strongly
>> >> disagree. Fine with me. But I'm tired of seeing Braga demonized.
>> >
>> >One thing that really bothered me about the Moore interview was that
>Voyager
>> >really doesn't have a message. At the moment, I can't think of anything
>to
>> >dispute that.
>>
>> Well, DS9 certainly didn't have a message, at least not one that I
>> could ever discern, unless the show stood for the idea that mysticism
>> is better than reason, and war is more meaningful than peace.
>
>The way I saw it, the message was about spirituality's importance in society
>rather than choosing mysticism over reason. I admire spirituality in
>people, so that gives me a bias there. As far as war being more meaningful
>than peace, I'm not sure what episode could have given that impression.
>Maybe the messagethat you're seeing (beginning with a newly liberated Bajor
>and ending with the Dominion War) was that a war for freedom was preferable
>to a peace in under tyranny. That's something I could agree with.
>
I think you are giving the show far too much credit. DS9 didn't have
spiritualism; it had phony mysticism. As for what you say was the
message of all the war eps (and there were a *lot* of them), I don't
think it was ever even addressed. Maybe assumed, but certainly not
presented or offered in a thought-provoking way.
What gets me about all this -- in fact it kind of creeps me out -- is
that many of you are lamenting Voyager's vacuity while uncritically
accepting schlock from DS9 as meaningful. It's the inconsistency that
bothers me.
>> >The writers put out some damn good episodes like "Tinker..."
>> >and "Timeless"; they've also given us a few stinkers like "In the Flesh"
>and
>> >"Alice". But in the grand scheme of the show, what exactly are the
>writers
>> >trying to tell us?
>>
>> That we have a place in the future. That was the message of TOS and
>> TNG as well, but not DS9.
>
>DS9 tweaked it a bit. We still have a place in the future, but we can never
>stop working for it, and we have to be willing to sacrifice a lot in order
>to secure it. We're on the path to great things, but nothing will ever be
>guaranteed.
This is what you call substance? It's pablum.
>> >> This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
>> >> Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
>> >> discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
>> >> than they seem.
>> >
>> >Conceded, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
>>
>> The simplest explanation is that Moore is a malcontent.
>
>Or that Braga's an a-hole. But I think the simplest yet is that it was
>never meant to be.
>
If you mean Moore and Braga working together as equals on a show that
is so different from Moore's favorite, then I agree. Moore should
have had the grace to leave *and* keep his mouth shut.
-- Amarna
Amarna
wrote:
>In article <ivek8ssig38e2hum3...@4ax.com>,
>Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 10:22:39 -0800, "BMJ" <troubl...@jackass.com>
>>wrote:
>[snip]
>>>For all we know, Braga may have been a
>>>complete a-hole to him and did everything in his power to drive Moore out.
>>
>>But of course it is also possible that Moore was a complete a-hole and
>>did everything in his power to take the direction of the show away
>>from what Braga wanted.
>
>Wow, are you implying you believe Braga actually has a direction in
>mind for the show? Care to share with us what you think that might be? :)
You confuse "direction" with story arcs. Star Trek, except for DS9,
is and always has been episodic TV. Each episode stands on its own,
although the characters develop slowly over time. Voyager has done a
pretty good job at that.
I don't deny that there have been some glitches, but I think people
who are looking for discernable changes in a few years are
unrealistic. Life is not like that. At least Voyager has stayed away
from the fashion-of-the-day treatment that Kira got on DS9.
The only direction that DS9 had in its last few years was weirder and
weirder. It alienated mainstream Trek fans, by which I mean the
people that don't necessarily watch every week but who like the show,
and who far outnumber those like us who watch regularly and then
discuss it on the 'net.
>>I don't really have anything against Moore, despite what I've said. I
>>just find all the Braga-bashing and Moore hagiography tiresome. I
>>personally don't happen to think Moore's writing skills are any more
>>impressive than Braga's. I've *seen* DS9, and I don't think it's
>>Shakespeare. I hated a lot of what they -- and Moore -- did to it.
>>That's just my opinion, and I understand that a lot of people strongly
>>disagree. Fine with me. But I'm tired of seeing Braga demonized.
>
>Moore's comments seem dead-on to me; regardless, though, it's obvious
>just by reading the issues he raises that he's given a great deal
>of thought on what's wrong with Voyager. I've only seen parts 1 and 4
>of the interview, but he pointed out several fairly obvious problems
>with the show that Braga and Co. have been unwilling or unable to bring
>themselves to address.
I read 1 and 2. Part 2 especially revealed -- unintentionally no
doubt -- a very unattractive side to Moore. People would do well to
read it carefully and critically.
>>This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
>>Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
>>discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
>>than they seem.
>
>True, but then, we do have some impartial evidence: several hundred
>episodes of DS9 and Voyager. :)
I see the same evidence, but come to a different conclusion.
>
>Phil
-- Amarna
Amarna
>I think that's part of the problem. Classic Trek had almost *no* character
>development, and I think that when all's said and done this is what's important.
>Sure, you get the development in Seven, the Doc, and Janeway, but about the
>other characters? In DS9, I could see the evolution of all the main and
>recurring characters. Voyager doesn't have to be about war to be good, but as
>Moore said, it *does* have to be about the characters. If you fail there, then
>you might as well give up.
Perhaps, but I don't think DS9 was any more about the characters than
Voyager. Oh sure, things happened to them, but those were plot
points, not character development. Take Kai Winn. She started out as
a great character, a complex and driven woman with genuine religious
conviction and a deep desire to serve her people, but also intolerant
and often blinded by personal ambition. By the last year of the
series, she was reduced to a crazy, lonely, and pathetic old woman.
That's not continuity. It's expediency.
Then there was what's his name. Not Garak (him I liked). The other
one. Give me a break! Okay, so he was popular. That's no excuse to
bring him back in ten different personalities.
>
>>which is
>>by the way infinitely harder to write than fantasy mysticism and phony
>>arcs that glorify war.
>
>I think that it's much harder to write with continuity. The rewards are
>greater, IMESAO. Just take a look at the most critically acclaimed dramas on TV
Deep Space Nine isn't one of them.
>and you'll see what I mean.
>
>>Most of the shows don't succeed, but that was
>>true of TOS as well. Very few were really memorable. As for TNG, I
>>think it is way overrated, but even if I loved it, I'd have to point
>>out that it was pretty much the only game in town then (as was TOS).
>
>Personally, I think that one of the main reasons for TNG's success was Patrick
>Stewart's acting ability.
I think he's overrated too. Competent, yes, But not that great a
range.
>Sadly, none of the actors on Voyager really move me
>as much.
Voyager is the first ST that has characters who *do* move me. While I
may have liked some of the episodes on the other shows, I never cared
much for any of the characters.
>I wonder if other critics of the show feel the same.
Of course they do. That's why they're critics.
-- Amarna
BMJ
Julianna Feigl <glacie...@hotmail.com.spamisboring> wrote in message
news:388DD2...@hotmail.com.spamisboring...
> BMJ wrote:
> >
>
>
> > I think that's part of the problem. Classic Trek had almost *no*
character
> > development,
>
>
> > Sure, you get the development in Seven, the Doc, and Janeway, but about
the
> > other characters? In DS9, I could see the evolution of all the main and
> > recurring characters. Voyager doesn't have to be about war to be good,
but as
> > Moore said, it *does* have to be about the characters.
>
> such as the Tommies and Chuckles of this world...
>
> > you might as well give up.
> >
>
>
> <snip>
> > Personally, I think that one of the main reasons for TNG's success was
Patrick
move me
> > as much.
>
> Those that do get the opportunities, don't.... some are not given a
> chance *ever* :-((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Stop doing that! :-(
Francis Martinstein
article <86i7a5$1n...@drn.newsguy.com>:
> Classic Trek had almost *no* character
> development,
Way more than "Voyager" ever did. And what's more important,
overall, the stories on TNG didn't blow. *Unlike* those on "Voyager",
I might add...
>and I think that when all's said and done this is what's important.
> Sure, you get the development in Seven, the Doc, and Janeway, but about the
> other characters? In DS9, I could see the evolution of all the main and
> recurring characters. Voyager doesn't have to be about war to be good, but as
> Moore said, it *does* have to be about the characters. If you fail there, then
> you might as well give up.
And "giving up" has what many old-time fans have suggested
re:Voy so many times. This show has little or nothing to do with what
Trek was about in the other three series which _were_ successful
(again, _unlike_ Voyager which has always performed poorly). Voyager
should have been given the boot years ago, but unfortunately the babe
factor and even more simplistic stories than before Seven Of Nine came
aboard have kept this sorry excuse for a show afloat ever since. At
any rate, even if Voy does manage to make it to the end of season 7,
it will still go down in television history as the least successful
and most loathed Trek series to date. And that's *some* satisfaction
to real Trekkers, at least.
> Personally, I think that one of the main reasons for TNG's success was Patrick
> Stewart's acting ability.
The best actors of all time wouldn't have made a success out
of Voyager. In the end, it all comes down to the quality of the
stories, as it did with TNG. Sure, the actors portraying the
characters can add some charm and warmth to a show, but "the main
reason" for making a show successful? I don't think so.
> Sadly, none of the actors on Voyager really move me
> as much. I wonder if other critics of the show feel the same.
See above.
Francis (To email, replace 'Netherlands' with 'nl')
- - - - - -
'The only thing that never changes, is that I don't give a damn
whether anything ever changes or not.' - Me.
BMJ
What was it that made them "classic DS9 stories"? Define this label.
> "Barge..." was about
> Torres but didn't have much universal meaning, other than that we
> should all grow up.
I liked it for the FX and the story was kinda cool, but it wasn't special.
Moore *did* have a hand in it, but it wasn't the original story. For all we
know, what he wrote was far different from what aired. We shouldn't fault
him too much if it wasn't perfect.
> You could say almost the same about "Survival
> Instinct," except that it was about Seven. So, that amounts to more
> Klingon foolishness and more Borg "culture." What's so special about
> that?
Hmm, I actually liked that episode a lot. But I didn't see it as a "Borg
culture" episode. It seemed to me to be more about Seven of Nine her coming
to grips with her past than anything else. Wow, I didn't know Moore did
that episode...
That's not my point. All I'm saying is that Moore doesn't strike me as
someone who would bash the show just because he didin't get his way. I
mentioned the Trek community because I compare him to an unhappy fan rather
than a disgruntled writer seeking retribution.
>That in no way invalidates the views of others who disagree.
Indeed.
> Frankly, the discontented former fans (for lack of a better term) will
> naturally glom on to whatever anyone says against the show.
I don't think you're giving dissenters within the Trek community enough
credit. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that the opinions of
others are necessarily wrong.
>That
> proves nothing. It reminds me of some of the Kennedy conspiracy
> theories.
But the fact that Moore's concerns echo those of many other Trekkers
indicate that he's more than just a "disgruntled writer". That's my
underlying point here.
> >I think in Moore's mind, it might be better
> >to slam Voyager now in order to save Trek in the near future.
>
> See...that's just what I was talking about in one of my other posts.
> Voyager does not need to be "saved,"
IYO, but others who love Trek disagree. Moore happens to be one of them,
which is why I'm not sure that he's criticizing the show *just because* his
feelings were hurt. As I said, it doesn't seem to me that Moore criticizes
just because of self-interest.
> least of all by someone who was a
> major factor in ruining DS9 (which never was really Trek anyway).
Just because you don't like DS9 and disagree with its style doesn't make it
"never really Trek". I haven't even said that about Voyager, even at its
worst.
> > Just focusing
> >on the merits of his critique rather than whether he's being
professional,
> >I'd say that most of what he argued *should* be taken to heart by the
next
> >show's PTB.
>
> I did focus on it. There was nothing there but carping and jealousy.
> It was petty.
As I said, he echoed a lot of concerns voiced by other Trekkers. I don't
think those Trekkers who don't like the direction Voyager's taking are
"jealous".
You mean as opposed to spirit guides and "akoochimoya"? <G>
Seriously, I think it treated spirituality in a respectful way. None of the
other Treks went as far.
> As for what you say was the
> message of all the war eps (and there were a *lot* of them), I don't
> think it was ever even addressed.
I think it was.
> Maybe assumed, but certainly not
> presented or offered in a thought-provoking way.
I disagree, because my thoughts were provoked.
> What gets me about all this -- in fact it kind of creeps me out -- is
> that many of you are lamenting Voyager's vacuity while uncritically
> accepting schlock from DS9 as meaningful. It's the inconsistency that
> bothers me.
Erm, I guess you were never on the DS9 NG. You would have seen a lot more
criticism there by people who much preferred DS9 over Voyager.
> >> >The writers put out some damn good episodes like "Tinker..."
> >> >and "Timeless"; they've also given us a few stinkers like "In the
Flesh"
> >and
> >> >"Alice". But in the grand scheme of the show, what exactly are the
> >writers
> >> >trying to tell us?
> >>
> >> That we have a place in the future. That was the message of TOS and
> >> TNG as well, but not DS9.
> >
> >DS9 tweaked it a bit. We still have a place in the future, but we can
never
> >stop working for it, and we have to be willing to sacrifice a lot in
order
> >to secure it. We're on the path to great things, but nothing will ever
be
> >guaranteed.
>
> This is what you call substance?
This is what I called its message. It was in response to your claim that
DS9 had none. See above.
But after further thought, I'm not sure that Voyager's message *is* about us
having a place in the future. Soentimes, the only things I get from it are
holodeck fantasies and "gratuitous butt shots". Not that I think those are
badthings, but I can't see any profound insight in those things.
> It's pablum.
>
> >> >> This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
> >> >> Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
> >> >> discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
> >> >> than they seem.
> >> >
> >> >Conceded, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
> >>
> >> The simplest explanation is that Moore is a malcontent.
> >
> >Or that Braga's an a-hole. But I think the simplest yet is that it was
> >never meant to be.
> >
> If you mean Moore and Braga working together as equals on a show that
> is so different from Moore's favorite, then I agree. Moore should
> have had the grace to leave *and* keep his mouth shut.
Just because you question his motives doesn't mean he should "keep his mouth
shut" anymore than someone like SJ or Francis M'stein on this NG.
Amarna
wrote:
A focus on details of alien behaviors and customs for their own sake.
BOTD and SI had a little more than than, while DS9 was often that and
nothing else, but still, they were very much DS9-type stories. We
learned more about Klingons than about Torres, and more about the Borg
than about Seven. On DS9 the imbalance would have been greater.
>> "Barge..." was about
>> Torres but didn't have much universal meaning, other than that we
>> should all grow up.
>
>I liked it for the FX and the story was kinda cool, but it wasn't special.
>Moore *did* have a hand in it, but it wasn't the original story. For all we
>know, what he wrote was far different from what aired. We shouldn't fault
>him too much if it wasn't perfect.
>
>> You could say almost the same about "Survival
>> Instinct," except that it was about Seven. So, that amounts to more
>> Klingon foolishness and more Borg "culture." What's so special about
>> that?
>
>Hmm, I actually liked that episode a lot. But I didn't see it as a "Borg
>culture" episode. It seemed to me to be more about Seven of Nine her coming
>to grips with her past than anything else. Wow, I didn't know Moore did
>that episode...
Maybe I'm wrong. There have been so many conflicting comments on the
'net....
He could be both. I think he is.
>>That in no way invalidates the views of others who disagree.
>
>Indeed.
>
>> Frankly, the discontented former fans (for lack of a better term) will
>> naturally glom on to whatever anyone says against the show.
>
>I don't think you're giving dissenters within the Trek community enough
>credit. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that the opinions of
>others are necessarily wrong.
I didn't say that.
>>That
>> proves nothing. It reminds me of some of the Kennedy conspiracy
>> theories.
>
>But the fact that Moore's concerns echo those of many other Trekkers
>indicate that he's more than just a "disgruntled writer". That's my
>underlying point here.
Look, cynicism pervades our culture at the present time. I personally
think it's a sickness, but I can't deny that it is popular. Star Trek
fans are not immune.
We as a society are also awash in retrograde religious views and in
every form of phony spirituality from belief in the Devil to Tarot
cards. That's what makes some people like certain aspects of shows
like DS9 and B5. I try to be open-minded about it, but I don't think
it is a good thing and I don't think it is entirely harmless either.
>> >I think in Moore's mind, it might be better
>> >to slam Voyager now in order to save Trek in the near future.
>>
>> See...that's just what I was talking about in one of my other posts.
>> Voyager does not need to be "saved,"
>
>IYO, but others who love Trek disagree. Moore happens to be one of them,
>which is why I'm not sure that he's criticizing the show *just because* his
>feelings were hurt. As I said, it doesn't seem to me that Moore criticizes
>just because of self-interest.
As I've said before, Moore's criticisms sounded a lot like "Voyager
isn't DS9." Some of us think that's a good thing.
>> least of all by someone who was a
>> major factor in ruining DS9 (which never was really Trek anyway).
>
>Just because you don't like DS9 and disagree with its style doesn't make it
>"never really Trek".
Well, here I can turn you own argument back at you: I'm not the only
one who has said DS9 isn't really Trek. Lots of people think that.
>I haven't even said that about Voyager, even at its
>worst.
It's not an insult.
>> > Just focusing
>> >on the merits of his critique rather than whether he's being
>professional,
>> >I'd say that most of what he argued *should* be taken to heart by the
>next
>> >show's PTB.
>>
>> I did focus on it. There was nothing there but carping and jealousy.
>> It was petty.
>
>As I said, he echoed a lot of concerns voiced by other Trekkers. I don't
>think those Trekkers who don't like the direction Voyager's taking are
>"jealous".
There were almost no facts (verifiable or otherwise). He was
basically just saying the show stinks and he could have done it better
and how sad it was that they wouldn't listen. Give me a break! If I
thought Moore ever did a great show, maybe I'd cut him some slack.
But he did DS9. I'm glad they booted him out.
The word "akoochimoya" sounds a little stupid, but nothing too weird
actually happens. We know the little tricorder thing induces some
sort of high, freeing the mind to trip out. And at least whole arcs
don't revolve around it.
>Seriously, I think it treated spirituality in a respectful way. None of the
>other Treks went as far.
I disagree. I think DS9 reduced spirituality to weirdness and,
essentially, occultism. In the end, Sisko gets absorbed by the
wormhole aliens. That about signifies the whole series.
Voyager, on the other hand, did "Sacred Ground." That show upset a
lot of people and caused some argument, but it did really pose some
questions about faith, spirituality, and scientific arrogance.
"Emanations" was another one. Both of these shows made people argue.
Contrast that to DS9. Who cares about Bajor's ancient relics? It
means nothing. It poses no important questions. It's all just
made-up schlock. That's what Moore wanted to bring to Voyager. I'm
glad he didn't succeed.
>> As for what you say was the
>> message of all the war eps (and there were a *lot* of them), I don't
>> think it was ever even addressed.
>
>I think it was.
>
>> Maybe assumed, but certainly not
>> presented or offered in a thought-provoking way.
>
>I disagree, because my thoughts were provoked.
I'm glad you got something out of it.
>> What gets me about all this -- in fact it kind of creeps me out -- is
>> that many of you are lamenting Voyager's vacuity while uncritically
>> accepting schlock from DS9 as meaningful. It's the inconsistency that
>> bothers me.
>
>Erm, I guess you were never on the DS9 NG. You would have seen a lot more
>criticism there by people who much preferred DS9 over Voyager.
Are the DS9 defenders who cross-post to the Voy group somehow
different from the ones who don't?
>> >> >The writers put out some damn good episodes like "Tinker..."
>> >> >and "Timeless"; they've also given us a few stinkers like "In the
>Flesh"
>> >and
>> >> >"Alice". But in the grand scheme of the show, what exactly are the
>> >writers
>> >> >trying to tell us?
>> >>
>> >> That we have a place in the future. That was the message of TOS and
>> >> TNG as well, but not DS9.
>> >
>> >DS9 tweaked it a bit. We still have a place in the future, but we can
>never
>> >stop working for it, and we have to be willing to sacrifice a lot in
>order
>> >to secure it. We're on the path to great things, but nothing will ever
>be
>> >guaranteed.
>>
>> This is what you call substance?
>
>This is what I called its message. It was in response to your claim that
>DS9 had none. See above.
>
>But after further thought, I'm not sure that Voyager's message *is* about us
>having a place in the future. Soentimes, the only things I get from it are
>holodeck fantasies and "gratuitous butt shots".
Both Voyager and DS9 have used the holodeck well and badly. Both have
had plenty of gratuitous sex, although I think DS9 has the edge in
trashy sex (Worf and Dax, and that ep where Troi's mother makes
everyone get the hots for everyone).
>Not that I think those are
>badthings, but I can't see any profound insight in those things.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I thought all of TOS had only
a handful of good episodes. Same for TNG. DS9 actually had more
decent episodes than either of its predecessors before it went
completely off the deep end of the pool. In my opinion Voyager has
had more good shows than any of them. But that still leaves most of
the shows as insignificant (but hopefully entertaining) diversions.
Different people have different preferences in entertainment. I did
not find the DS9 war arcs and mysticism either entertaining or
enlightening. That's partly a matter of personal taste. Obviously,
you feel the opposite.
>> It's pablum.
>>
>> >> >> This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
>> >> >> Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
>> >> >> discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
>> >> >> than they seem.
>> >> >
>> >> >Conceded, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
>> >>
>> >> The simplest explanation is that Moore is a malcontent.
>> >
>> >Or that Braga's an a-hole. But I think the simplest yet is that it was
>> >never meant to be.
>> >
>> If you mean Moore and Braga working together as equals on a show that
>> is so different from Moore's favorite, then I agree. Moore should
>> have had the grace to leave *and* keep his mouth shut.
>
>Just because you question his motives doesn't mean he should "keep his mouth
>shut" anymore than someone like SJ or Francis M'stein on this NG.
>
No, I disagree. SJ and Francis didn't take money from the franchise
and they have no professional obligation to it.
-- Amarna
Julianna Feigl
>
> Julianna Feigl <glacie...@hotmail.com.spamisboring> wrote in message
> news:388DD2...@hotmail.com.spamisboring..
> > >
> >
> >
> > > I think that's part of the problem. Classic Trek had almost *no*
> character
> > > development,
> >
> > You trying to troll me or what????????
> >
> > > Sure, you get the development in Seven, the Doc, and Janeway, but about
> the
> > > other characters? In DS9, I could see the evolution of all the main and
> > > recurring characters. Voyager doesn't have to be about war to be good,
> but as
> > > Moore said, it *does* have to be about the characters.
> >
> > such as the Tommies and Chuckles of this world...
> >
> > > you might as well give up.
> > >
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Personally, I think that one of the main reasons for TNG's success was
> Patrick
> move me
> > > as much.
> >
> > Those that do get the opportunities, don't.... some are not given a
> > chance *ever* :-((((((((((((((((((((((((((
>
> Stop doing that! :-(
I can't! "Fair Haven" has utterly depressed me!
:-((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Julianna Feigl
> And "giving up" has what many old-time fans have suggested
> re:Voy so many times. This show has little or nothing to do with what
> Trek was about in the other three series which _were_ successful
> (again, _unlike_ Voyager which has always performed poorly). Voyager
> should have been given the boot years ago, but unfortunately the babe
> factor and even more simplistic stories than before Seven Of Nine came
> aboard have kept this sorry excuse for a show afloat ever since. At
> any rate, even if Voy does manage to make it to the end of season 7,
> it will still go down in television history as the least successful
> and most loathed Trek series to date. And that's *some* satisfaction
> to real Trekkers, at least.
It won't help those poor actors, though, that are associated with that
disaster....
Robert Oliver
> As I've said before, Moore's criticisms sounded a lot like "Voyager
> isn't DS9." Some of us think that's a good thing.
No, Moore's criticism of Voyager hit the nail on the head. It was
perfect. Flawless. He summed up every reason (and there are a ton of
them) that I didn't bother to try finding Voyager after my local station
dropped it after the third season.
I never hated the show, but after reading what Moore had to say I
realized just how poorly it had handled the basic premise, and how many
opportunities for good drama they had missed.
I remember looking forward to seeing a Federation ship deal with being
stranded so far from home, but in the end it was just Starfleet business
as usual in a different part of the galaxy. Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi,
Cardassian "missiles", etc....
And then there's the technobabble. As someone who has done extensive fan
research, I, like Moore, was floored at the amazing level of useless
technobabble, especially in the first half of the first season. One's
mind could glaze over at the stream of nonsense flowing from the actor's
mouths.
My interest in Trek has nosedived since the end of DS9 (whose final
episode was a horrible waste after seasons of build-up). Voyager didn't
help, since, as Moore pointed out, they certainly never seemed to care
about continuity or treating the audience as intelligent people. Add in
Insurrection and I'm at an all-time low in my interest of Trek, a
franchise that needs a well-deserved break and some truly fresh ideas
from people who won't treat the audience like idiots.
--
Big Country: Steeltown
http://members.mint.net/roliver/bc-mint.htm
ALEX ROSENZWEIG
<rol...@mint.net> wrote:
> > As I've said before, Moore's criticisms sounded a lot like "Voyager
> > isn't DS9." Some of us think that's a good thing.
>
> No, Moore's criticism of Voyager hit the nail on the head. It was
> perfect. Flawless. He summed up every reason (and there are a ton of
> them) that I didn't bother to try finding Voyager after my local
> station dropped it after the third season.
I'm still watching Voyager, for whatever reason, but I have to chime in
with my feeling that for me, too, Mr. Moore's criticisms echoed
everything I've always felt was missing in the show, even while I have
continued to give it a new chance with each episode. In fact, Moore
said it as well as I have ever managed.
> I never hated the show, but after reading what Moore had to say I
> realized just how poorly it had handled the basic premise, and how
> many opportunities for good drama they had missed.
I had had those feelings from very early on, and what struck me wasn't
so much that someone else realized it, too, but that a Trek producer
had so clearly articulated almost everything I felt was both wrong and
right with the show.
> I remember looking forward to seeing a Federation ship deal with being
> stranded so far from home, but in the end it was just Starfleet
> business as usual in a different part of the galaxy. Klingons,
> Romulans, Ferengi, Cardassian "missiles", etc....
I used to say of Voyager that it had this shining opportunity to tell a
Star Trek story unlike any other. In TOS, TNG, and DS9, we would hear
about the ships that were missing, presumed lost, but then the main
characters would go on to their next adventure and that was it. Voyager
is allegedly the story of one of those ships, but the series largely
threw away that unique tale for something much more "conventional".
> And then there's the technobabble. As someone who has done
> extensive fan research, I, like Moore, was floored at the amazing
> level of useless technobabble, especially in the first half of the
> first season. One's mind could glaze over at the stream of nonsense
> flowing from the actor's mouths.
And it's sad, really. These are people who have to live in a
technological world, so a certain level of tech-speak is reasonable.
But Voyager goes way beyond that, inventing technobabble even where
it's not necessary. It seems as if they feel this need to cram it in,
just to make the audience feel that they're in that environment, and
instead reach a lack of realism that one often gets jarred out of
suspension of disbelief, and the illusion of real people in a real
situation is lost.
> My interest in Trek has nosedived since the end of DS9 (whose final
> episode was a horrible waste after seasons of build-up). Voyager
> didn't help, since, as Moore pointed out, they certainly never seemed
> to care about continuity or treating the audience as intelligent
> people.
Every once in a while, I see a flash of really, really good writing. I
guess that's why I keep coming back. But I find the lack of continuity
oft-times painful to watch, and too often I just end up not caring what
happens by the end of the episode...and that's frustrating...
Best,
Alex
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
htj...@yahoo.com
regarding the controversy surrounding him leaving Star Trek Voyager
makes me think that he is not the genuine article that some people
apparently think he is. Perhaps some of you may remember that when he
announced his departure on the Internet, he proclaimed that he will keep
his professionalism and will not speak regarding the circumstances
surrounding his departure. Now what had he done? He came out swinging
against his former colleagues. My respect for him immediately dropped
to negative territory since he demonstrated a lack of ability to keep
his word in public.
- htjyang
Michele
wanted to tell before a whole bunch of rumors went out of
control. He changed his mind and he is allowed to do it.
htj...@yahoo.com
People kept badgering him on the subject. I think he just
wanted to tell before a whole bunch of rumors went out of
control. He changed his mind and he is allowed to do it.
If people kept badgering him to reveal his credit card numbers, will he
reveal it under public pressure?
Everyone is free to throw their principles out of the window. I'm not
saying that he isn't allowed to do that. I'm just saying that we should
see what he did as is.
- htjyang
Eric Knops
wrote:
>>I think that's part of the problem. Classic Trek had almost *no* character
>>development, and I think that when all's said and done this is what's important.
>>Sure, you get the development in Seven, the Doc, and Janeway, but about the
>>other characters? In DS9, I could see the evolution of all the main and
>>recurring characters. Voyager doesn't have to be about war to be good, but as
>>Moore said, it *does* have to be about the characters. If you fail there, then
>>you might as well give up.
>
>Perhaps, but I don't think DS9 was any more about the characters than
>Voyager. Oh sure, things happened to them, but those were plot
>points, not character development. Take Kai Winn. She started out as
>a great character, a complex and driven woman with genuine religious
>conviction and a deep desire to serve her people, but also intolerant
>and often blinded by personal ambition. By the last year of the
>series, she was reduced to a crazy, lonely, and pathetic old woman.
>That's not continuity. It's expediency.
I really hated the way they wrapped up the Bajor plotline at the end
of DS9, but overall the arc plotline worked.
As for Kai Winn, I liked her turning point when she couldn't give up
the power she had (the conversation with Kira). As I said above, I
didn't like how they killed her character off, but that's because I
was expecting something better based on how good the series had been
to that point.
>Then there was what's his name. Not Garak (him I liked). The other
>one. Give me a break! Okay, so he was popular. That's no excuse to
>bring him back in ten different personalities.
Dukat is who you're thinking of, I suspect. I LOVED his character
and how he evolved, up to the Pah Wraith crap the last two seasons.
His performance in "Sacrifice of Angels" was stunning. The
conversations between him and Wayoun were priceless!
Damar was also well played, though the relationship between him and
Dukat did not evolve like I hoped (the Pah Wraith plotline ruined
everything).
>Voyager is the first ST that has characters who *do* move me. While I
>may have liked some of the episodes on the other shows, I never cared
>much for any of the characters.
The Doctor is the only good character on that show. I actually saw
Robert Picardo in a Round Table Pizza one time and wanted to tell him
he plays his character extremely well, but I figured he'd rather not
be bothered by a fan at such a location.
Mostly I feel sorry for him for being on such a lousy show, however.
The same goes for Jeri Lynn Ryan. She's obviously a talented actress
and she has to dress up in an absurd outfit and parade her breasts
around each episode. Yes, they look great, but I'd rather have her
dressed in a way I can take her seriously. I can picture her naked
using my imagination just fine without the producers helping me. :)
Basically, Ron Moore's comments about Voyager echoed my own thoughts
quite a bit. It's a shame a guy like him got run out of the show.
I have little hope for it getting better, that's for sure.
Michael Hafer
>and how he evolved, up to the Pah Wraith crap the last two seasons.
>His performance in "Sacrifice of Angels" was stunning. The
>conversations between him and Wayoun were priceless!
>
The conversation in OPS between Dukat and Weyoun discussing the battle plan in
front of the Founder and Damar... Weyoun: I couldn't hope to match your
eleoquence.
Dukat: True.
Heh, such a smartass.
Michael Hafer
Eric Knops
wrote:
My favorite scene (one of the best in any Star Trek) was their
conversation in Sisko's office about conquering the Federation.
Whoever wrote that scene is a genius....
The actor who played Dukat perfectly captured his megalomania,
overconfidence, and insecurity. He didn't want to be the bad guy on
Bajor, but had grown to intensely hate them for how they forced him to
play the role. He took their resistance to him personally, and it
had eaten at him for years how he was considered the bad guy by men
like Sisko. And his use of Sisko's baseball was wonderful. "Laugh
all you want. History will prove me right."
Then you had Weyoun, also played to perfection as the cold,
calculating villain. He declared Earth's population should be
eradicated so matter-of-factly. It was strictly business, nothing
personal. They played off of each other so beautifully in that
scene.
Villain characters can be more enjoyable to watch than the good guys,
and DS9 was one of the few shows that understood that.
SJohnson
Normally, this would be considered a point well-made, Five-O... but not
here. Too much anti-Moore sentiments along this argument to think that
your comments will be taken under any serious consideration.
(Nice try, though.)
> > >I think in Moore's mind, it might be better
> > >to slam Voyager now in order to save Trek in the near future.
> >
> > See...that's just what I was talking about in one of my other posts.
> > Voyager does not need to be "saved,"
>
> IYO, but others who love Trek disagree. Moore happens to be one of them,
> which is why I'm not sure that he's criticizing the show *just because* his
> feelings were hurt. As I said, it doesn't seem to me that Moore criticizes
> just because of self-interest.
>
> > least of all by someone who was a
> > major factor in ruining DS9 (which never was really Trek anyway).
>
> Just because you don't like DS9 and disagree with its style doesn't make it
> "never really Trek". I haven't even said that about Voyager, even at its
> worst.
Same here, Fiver... same here.
Even as angry as I've been with VOY lately, I've never voiced the
wish/demand/practice of totally disregarding VOY's input into the entire
ST mythos...
I've only wished the current writers, producers, etc., would take a
little more care in keeping close to the already-established Trek
continuity established BEFORE in other Trek shows-- and at the very
beginning of THIS Trek series, also. That in itself should not be
immediately dismissed out-of-hand as pro-DS9 (TNG/TOS) and anti-VOY.
Both Francis and Amarna (and those harboring such *extremes* in
rationales for despising the other's favorite show) seems determined to
forever pigeon-hole this debate into opposing camps of all-out 'fan
war'-- and THIS, it should NOT be. It's all REALLY beginning to irritate
me now to no end, I'm sad to say.
And, of course, I'm eagerly anticipating the coming diatribe that'll
label my words above as so much "only wishing to believe the negative
reports about VOY's so-called 'troubles' to fulfill a positive DS9
agenda". [The last sentence was <sarcasm>, for those unfamiliar with my
style...]
[snip other good attempts to balance this debate]
> > >> >> This is the real world. Everybody has faults and strengths.
> > >> >> Everybody behaves badly sometimes. And lots and lots of people are
> > >> >> discontented much of the time. Things are always more complicated
> > >> >> than they seem.
> > >> >
> > >> >Conceded, but sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.
> > >>
> > >> The simplest explanation is that Moore is a malcontent.
> > >
> > >Or that Braga's an a-hole. But I think the simplest yet is that it was
> > >never meant to be.
> > >
> > If you mean Moore and Braga working together as equals on a show that
> > is so different from Moore's favorite, then I agree. Moore should
> > have had the grace to leave *and* keep his mouth shut.
>
> Just because you question his motives doesn't mean he should "keep his mouth
> shut" anymore than someone like SJ or Francis M'stein on this NG.
Ditto. And other rationalizations like the 'they aintz gettin' paid to
work on Trek like Moore' bit of nonsense in Amarna's response to this
later on doesn't cut it, either. He's no different than other writers
who've had an inmeasurable impact on the growing success of a
series/movie/play, and have then left said series under
less-than-positive circumstances-- only to take the events surrounding
the aforementioned leave to the media at a later date.
SJ
Amarna
wrote:
>
>> As I've said before, Moore's criticisms sounded a lot like "Voyager
>> isn't DS9." Some of us think that's a good thing.
>
>No, Moore's criticism of Voyager hit the nail on the head. It was
>perfect. Flawless. He summed up every reason (and there are a ton of
>them) that I didn't bother to try finding Voyager after my local station
>dropped it after the third season.
I might respect his comments if DS9 had been a very much better show.
>
>I never hated the show, but after reading what Moore had to say I
>realized just how poorly it had handled the basic premise, and how many
>opportunities for good drama they had missed.
>
>I remember looking forward to seeing a Federation ship deal with being
>stranded so far from home, but in the end it was just Starfleet business
>as usual in a different part of the galaxy. Klingons, Romulans, Ferengi,
>Cardassian "missiles", etc....
>
>And then there's the technobabble. As someone who has done extensive fan
>research, I, like Moore, was floored at the amazing level of useless
>technobabble, especially in the first half of the first season. One's
>mind could glaze over at the stream of nonsense flowing from the actor's
>mouths.
>
>My interest in Trek has nosedived since the end of DS9 (whose final
>episode was a horrible waste after seasons of build-up).
Ah! But what you fail to realize is that the finale *had* to be a
horrible waste because the build-up was meaningless. It was about
nothing.
>Voyager didn't
>help, since, as Moore pointed out, they certainly never seemed to care
>about continuity or treating the audience as intelligent people.
Well, I certainly don't think DS9 credited its audience with
above-average IQs. I don't understand how bright people could accept
all that mystical nonsense as if it had meaning.
>Add in
>Insurrection and I'm at an all-time low in my interest of Trek,
I'm not sure why you didn't like "Insurrection" but I didn't either.
For once the women got a few good scenes and I liked that, but the
story was inherently flawed. It never explored whether it would have
been right to take the youth-planet and use it for everybody's
benefit. For one thing, the people living there were settlers
themselves. And regardless of the right and wrong of the thing,
Picard's intervention would have made him the most hated man in the
Federation. Think about it. If someone found a way to eternal youth
and then deliberately made it inaccessible, would he be popular?
>a
>franchise that needs a well-deserved break and some truly fresh ideas
>from people who won't treat the audience like idiots.
I don't think I'm an idiot and I don't feel I'm being treated like
one, although I often felt that way about TOS and TNG. With DS9, it
was more like I was thinking "What??!!"
-- Amarna
Amarna
wrote:
>BMJ wrote:
>>
>> Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>> news:vqjs8skma85be74es...@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 18:55:53 -0800, "BMJ" <troubl...@jackass.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
[snip]
I think you are overreacting to what I said. I explained it in
another post but maybe you missed it. Trek is fundamentally an
optimistic view of the future as one in which humanity has conquered
its baser impulses. DS9 did not adhere to that. DS9's heavy reliance
on mysticism was also a departure from the Trek ethos. That's why I
would say it was never really Trek. But that doesn't make it a bad
thing. I suppose if you wanted to you could make the argument that
DS9 *changed* Trek, i.e. redefined it, and therefore it *was* Trek.
However I don't think that can really be known until we see what comes
next.
>I've only wished the current writers, producers, etc., would take a
>little more care in keeping close to the already-established Trek
>continuity established BEFORE in other Trek shows-- and at the very
>beginning of THIS Trek series, also. That in itself should not be
>immediately dismissed out-of-hand as pro-DS9 (TNG/TOS) and anti-VOY.
All the shows had significant discontinuities. Mostly, they don't
bother me.
>Both Francis and Amarna (and those harboring such *extremes* in
>rationales for despising the other's favorite show) seems determined to
>forever pigeon-hole this debate into opposing camps of all-out 'fan
>war'-- and THIS, it should NOT be. It's all REALLY beginning to irritate
>me now to no end, I'm sad to say.
Sorry, big guy.
Maybe not, but it is still shabby. And unprofessional.
>
>SJ
-- Amarna
SJohnson
>
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:50:49 GMT, SJohnson <mede...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >BMJ wrote:
> >>
> >> Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> >> news:vqjs8skma85be74es...@4ax.com...
> >> > least of all by someone who was a
> >> > major factor in ruining DS9 (which never was really Trek anyway).
> >>
> >> Just because you don't like DS9 and disagree with its style doesn't make it
> >> "never really Trek". I haven't even said that about Voyager, even at its
> >> worst.
> >
> >Same here, Fiver... same here.
> >
> >Even as angry as I've been with VOY lately, I've never voiced the
> >wish/demand/practice of totally disregarding VOY's input into the entire
> >ST mythos...
>
> I think you are overreacting to what I said. I explained it in
> another post but maybe you missed it. Trek is fundamentally an
> optimistic view of the future as one in which humanity has conquered
> its baser impulses. DS9 did not adhere to that. DS9's heavy reliance on mysticism was also
> a departure from the Trek ethos. That's why I would say it was never really Trek.
Which is why Fiver's comment to you is STILL a valid one: Trek *WAS*
fundamentally an optimistic view of the future, blah blah blah...
When the G-Bird created this show back in the mid 60's, the above
sentiment was his main pitching point to the network suits-- which wound
up being executed as same once the series got up and going. He also kept
this same 'vision' during the first few Trek TOS theatrical movie runs.
When the G-Bird got TNG up and running, he again used this same model
for the first couple of seasons. But by this time, Trek (as we knew it
from the TOS days) was *already* in the process of change. Gene was VERY
alive (and contributing to the series) during the first two seasons; eps
like "Conspiracy", "The Neutral Zone", and "Coming of Age" of season
one, and second season eps of "Q Who?" and the hauntingly effective "The
Measure of a Man" shows that humanity had certainly NOT "conquered its
baser impulses", as you put it.
By the time Gene was dying (and Trek had then passed on to Berman,
Braga, Moore, et al) your interpretation of the universe that makes up
Trek had already gone the way of the dodo by season four with "The
Drumhead", "The Wounded" and "Legacy", and in season five with eps like
"Ensign Ro", "Unification I & II", and "The Outcast". It was in this
atmosphere that DS9 was created (via the aforementioned eps, "The
Wounded" and "Ensign Ro")-- again, created in the atmosphere of what was
then considered (and is NOW considered) 'standard Trek'.
So you yourself may choose to selectively disregard all post-Gene Trek
material as "non-Trek"; but you would be in a very small minority,
m'lady.
> But that doesn't make it a bad thing.
Not for those who already know (and *accept*) the fact that DS9 is 'real
Trek'; so, yes, it never WAS a bad thing to us... ;)
> I suppose if you wanted to you could make the argument that
> DS9 *changed* Trek, i.e. redefined it, and therefore it *was* Trek.
It may have changed some people's futher appreciation (or futher hatred)
of 'modern' Trek; but "changed" Trek? no, nothing that grandiose. It
(like VOY) is just another off-shoot from the same creative trunk.
And it (like VOY) is *still* Trek.
> However I don't think that can really be known until we see what comes
> next.
No need.
> >I've only wished the current writers, producers, etc., would take a
> >little more care in keeping close to the already-established Trek
> >continuity established BEFORE in other Trek shows-- and at the very
> >beginning of THIS Trek series, also. That in itself should not be
> >immediately dismissed out-of-hand as pro-DS9 (TNG/TOS) and anti-VOY.
>
> All the shows had significant discontinuities.
Oh, do tell... <Merrick eye-roll>
The difference being: The other Trek shows (while maybe not actually
trying as hard as VOY) at least gave the APPEARANCE of trying hard to
tightly knit most of the continuities between old and new eps... and it
showed-- which is ALL most fans want from a series with such a legacy in
the first place.
But when a series doesn't even TRY-- and yes, it will ultimately show--
then the fans, again, have the right to bitch about it. To add insult to
injury, the current caretakers of the fan-energized franchise publicly
state (in their own words, not a misquote or a mis-interpretation) that
they have no interest in trying to maintain the creative continuity of
the series-- despite the wishes of the fans would gave them their jobs
within the francise in the first place.
> Mostly, they don't bother me.
That comment I cannot personally judge you on, Amarna-- it's your own
prerogative.
But for *me*-- and, I reckon, others of my strange ilk <g>-- I not only
like just a WEE bit of creative continuity... but I am also not very
partial to those that tell me how stupid I am for wanting such from a
fantasy franchise BUILT (from the money we poor slobs pour in) on
maintaining said creative continuity.
So, yes, it does bother me-- especially when it's evident (via actions
or public words) that the current keepers of this fan-fueled enterprise
isn't even trying to maintain somethin' so basic, so simple... :(
> >Both Francis and Amarna (and those harboring such *extremes* in
> >rationales for despising the other's favorite show) seems determined to
> >forever pigeon-hole this debate into opposing camps of all-out 'fan
> >war'-- and THIS, it should NOT be. It's all REALLY beginning to irritate
> >me now to no end, I'm sad to say.
>
> Sorry, big guy.
Sorry to have to say it, Ms. A...
The whistle-blower is often labeled as such, Amarna. And we know what
bastards all those damned whistle-blowers have been, right..? ;)
SJ
>
> -- Amarna
Amarna
wrote:
I can't look all those up right now, but take "Drumhead." I think I
know which one that was. Wasn't that the one with the crazy admiral
finding conspiracies everywhere? I don't see that ep as a
contradiction with the established "vision" of Trek. The good guys
won. TOS had crazy captains. TNG had crazy admirals. Lots of them.
It's a running joke. They were plot devices to make the kind of
optimistic points that Trek has always made.
It was DS9 that changed that, with a much less optimistic overall
view, and with a lot of mysticism and a war orientation that would
have had absolutely no place in TOS or TNG.
>So you yourself may choose to selectively disregard all post-Gene Trek
>material as "non-Trek"; but you would be in a very small minority,
>m'lady.
I think the general public pretty much voted the same as I do. DS9
isn't perceived as Trek. I've had mainstream Trek fans (people who
liked the show and absorbed some of the Trek mindset but didn't/don't
always watch) say that to me. But I want to emphasize that that
doesn't make DS9 a bad thing. Personally, I don't understand why you
seem to feel offended at the suggestion that DS9 isn't Trek. To me,
whether something conforms or does not conform to the Trek formula has
very little to do with whether I like it. TOS and TNG conformed, but
I didn't care that much about them. I actually liked DS9 better than
either of them, because I think its best shows were better.
It isn't simple. There have been hundreds of Trek episodes and many
silly things done and said. Continuity of the kind you're talking
about gets harder and harder all the time.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.
>SJ
>>
>> -- Amarna
-- Amarna
SJohnson
[snippage (for length's sake)]
> >By the time Gene was dying (and Trek had then passed on to Berman,
> >Braga, Moore, et al) your interpretation of the universe that makes up
> >Trek had already gone the way of the dodo by season four with "The
> >Drumhead", "The Wounded" and "Legacy", and in season five with eps like
> >"Ensign Ro", "Unification I & II", and "The Outcast". It was in this
> >atmosphere that DS9 was created (via the aforementioned eps, "The
> >Wounded" and "Ensign Ro")-- again, created in the atmosphere of what was
> >then considered (and is NOW considered) 'standard Trek'.
>
> I can't look all those up right now, but take "Drumhead." I think I
> know which one that was. Wasn't that the one with the crazy admiral
> finding conspiracies everywhere? I don't see that ep as a
> contradiction with the established "vision" of Trek. The good guys
> won. TOS had crazy captains. TNG had crazy admirals. Lots of them.
> It's a running joke. They were plot devices to make the kind of
> optimistic points that Trek has always made.
Again: The point was, you were saying that Gene's original 'version' of
Trek was that humanity's "baser inpulses" had been "conquered". Admiral
Satie was a perfect example that "baser impulses" had not been
conquered-- nor will it, in ANY future. Using your own words, that.
> It was DS9 that changed that, with a much less optimistic overall
> view, and with a lot of mysticism and a war orientation that would
> have had absolutely no place in TOS or TNG.
Again: It really began in *TNG*, Amarna...
To wit:
"The Wounded" (TNG, Season 4)-- Cardassian lifestyle, mysticism, etc.;
"Legacy" (TNG, Season 4)-- citizens stating that the UFP government was
really NOT in tune with the so-called "real" problems happening outside
of Earth proper; "Ensign Ro" (TNG, Season 5)-- More insight into
Federation's dealing with Cardassia, and the freedom fighters (Bajorans)
fighting against them; "Redepmption, Pt. I & II" (TNG, Season 4 & 5) AND
"Unification, Pt. I & II"-- both two-parters showing that the UFP's
future was NOT going to be as peaceful and "optimistic" as orginally
stated, as it was now evident that the outside empires were now on a
even keel (technological and military-wise) with the Federation- and
they wern't going away anytime soon. And so and on and on; "Chain of
Command, Pt. I & II" (TNG, Season 6) is another example...
I mean, ALL these eps began on TNG, and (with the exception of
"Chain...") they all began in Seasons 4 & 5. DS9 didn't even hit the
ground until TNG's own mid-Season 6 (and also after "Chain...", too.)
*TNG* changed all that, Amarna. DS9 was just the logical extension of
the Trek franchise, as TPTB was looking for a series to replace TNG.
They had *already* built up the darker edge of future UFP (Trek!) life
with the above eps-- and DS9 simply just took that over, since it WAS a
Cardassian space station orbiting a Bajoran homeworld. The station
cannot explore the vast regions of space, etc., so it's only *logical*
that the stories of "Star Trek: DS9" would eventually involve the
lifestyles, culture, etc. of the civilizations surrounding it-- and on
the SF personnel sent there to 'oversee' same. Period.
All I (and others) ask of you, is to not let your dislike of the series
called "Star Trek: DS9" cloud the facts surrounding your opinions of
what was (and *is*) 'Star Trek'. And once again- for the upteenth time:
DS9 did not "change" the 'face' of Trek on its lone-some; it all
actually began with TNG-- in fact, two whole *years* before DS9 took off
on its own. Your so-called "war orientation" began in TNG; the
Cardassian/Bajoran "mysticism" began in TNG; and your statement that the
above items "had absolutely no place in TOS or TNG" is equally as wrong,
since it all began (once again) in TNG.
> >So you yourself may choose to selectively disregard all post-Gene Trek
> >material as "non-Trek"; but you would be in a very small minority,
> >m'lady.
>
> I think the general public pretty much voted the same as I do. DS9
> isn't perceived as Trek. I've had mainstream Trek fans (people who
> liked the show and absorbed some of the Trek mindset but didn't/don't
> always watch) say that to me. But I want to emphasize that that
> doesn't make DS9 a bad thing. Personally, I don't understand why you
> seem to feel offended at the suggestion that DS9 isn't Trek.
I'm afraid you give yourself too much credit, Ms. A. ;)
I'm not "offended" by your "suggestion" (nice wording, BTW!!) that DS9
isn't Trek; I'm just not going to let you make a comment like that
without you giving some actual facts to your argument. Yes, you gave
your own opinions, 'tis true; but you did not state a valid case for
same. Hence, my futher comments on it.
> To me, whether something conforms or does not conform to the Trek formula has
> very little to do with whether I like it. TOS and TNG conformed, but
> I didn't care that much about them. I actually liked DS9 better than
> either of them, because I think its best shows were better.
TOS was in another era (both in our real time, and in the UFP's
timeline); TNG "comformed" to its _own_ timeline, and to the events in
that time. As did DS9. In the 23th century, it ain't you father's UFP,
anymore..! ;)
[snip]
Please: Define "continuity of the kind you're talking about" before you
attach such a label to me. I've never asked them to do anything more
difficult in this area that other long-running series (TV, novels, etc.)
haven't done for themselves-- and with far greater results, I might add.
You lost me on that one...
[snip]
> >> >Ditto. And other rationalizations like the 'they aintz gettin' paid to
> >> >work on Trek like Moore' bit of nonsense in Amarna's response to this
> >> >later on doesn't cut it, either. He's no different than other writers
> >> >who've had an inmeasurable impact on the growing success of a
> >> >series/movie/play, and have then left said series under
> >> >less-than-positive circumstances-- only to take the events surrounding
> >> >the aforementioned leave to the media at a later date.
> >>
> >> Maybe not, but it is still shabby. And unprofessional.
> >
> >The whistle-blower is often labeled as such, Amarna. And we know what
> >bastards all those damned whistle-blowers have been, right..? ;)
>
> I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.
Disagreement *agreed* ;)
SJohnson
Amarna
wrote:
My problem with your analysis is that it is a reinterpretation of the
past as *causing* the present. But not everything in the past points
in such a straight line. Yes you can find many elements in the
earlier series that in hindsight appear to be forerunners of trends
that were far more pronounced in DS9. Maybe they are. But it seems
to me that most of those past examples point just as easily somewhere
else.
To me, the single overriding fact is that mysticism and the idea of
war as a crucible of human greatness were two of the major repeating
themes of DS9. That never happened before DS9. I'm not saying,
either, that that is all DS9 was, but rather just that there was far
too much of it for my taste.
>> >So you yourself may choose to selectively disregard all post-Gene Trek
>> >material as "non-Trek"; but you would be in a very small minority,
>> >m'lady.
>>
>> I think the general public pretty much voted the same as I do. DS9
>> isn't perceived as Trek. I've had mainstream Trek fans (people who
>> liked the show and absorbed some of the Trek mindset but didn't/don't
>> always watch) say that to me. But I want to emphasize that that
>> doesn't make DS9 a bad thing. Personally, I don't understand why you
>> seem to feel offended at the suggestion that DS9 isn't Trek.
>
>I'm afraid you give yourself too much credit, Ms. A. ;)
You did say you were becoming irritated. Even if I did cause it,
it's not something I would give myself "credit" for.
>I'm not "offended" by your "suggestion" (nice wording, BTW!!) that DS9
>isn't Trek; I'm just not going to let you make a comment like that
>without you giving some actual facts to your argument. Yes, you gave
>your own opinions, 'tis true; but you did not state a valid case for
>same. Hence, my futher comments on it.
>
>> To me, whether something conforms or does not conform to the Trek formula has
>> very little to do with whether I like it. TOS and TNG conformed, but
>> I didn't care that much about them. I actually liked DS9 better than
>> either of them, because I think its best shows were better.
>
>TOS was in another era (both in our real time, and in the UFP's
>timeline); TNG "comformed" to its _own_ timeline, and to the events in
>that time.
You can't be serious. Both shows were all over the place about the
Prime Directive. That's why fans can never agree on what it means.
I understand you to be talking about factual continuity. That's the
kind I mean.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> >Ditto. And other rationalizations like the 'they aintz gettin' paid to
>> >> >work on Trek like Moore' bit of nonsense in Amarna's response to this
>> >> >later on doesn't cut it, either. He's no different than other writers
>> >> >who've had an inmeasurable impact on the growing success of a
>> >> >series/movie/play, and have then left said series under
>> >> >less-than-positive circumstances-- only to take the events surrounding
>> >> >the aforementioned leave to the media at a later date.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe not, but it is still shabby. And unprofessional.
>> >
>> >The whistle-blower is often labeled as such, Amarna. And we know what
>> >bastards all those damned whistle-blowers have been, right..? ;)
>>
>> I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.
>
>Disagreement *agreed* ;)
Ah! Closure.
>SJohnson
-- Amarna
GeneK
>
> To me, the single overriding fact is that mysticism and the idea of
> war as a crucible of human greatness were two of the major repeating
> themes of DS9. That never happened before DS9. I'm not saying,
> either, that that is all DS9 was, but rather just that there was far
> too much of it for my taste.
TOS rather specifically talked about the glories of war as something
from a bygone age. Remember "Whom Gods Destroy," when Kirk told the
wacko ex-captain that his exploits at Axanar were required reading at
the Academy but that Kirk's visit to Axanar had been as a part of a
*peace* mission? OTOH, attitudes often change to suit the times, as
can be seen by the different ways the Vietnam and Gulf wars were
treated. By the standards of most "traditional" fans, the Federation
definitely lost some ground on the path to "improving the human
condition" during the TNG and DS9 years.
> You can't be serious. Both shows were all over the place about the
> Prime Directive. That's why fans can never agree on what it means.
TOS was actually fairly cosnsistent about what the PD was *supposed*
to mean...and on Kirk's rather "unique" interpretation of it as only
applying to "living, breathing cultures."
GeneK
Jeff Jacques
that I do watch and enjoy VGR, let me just say that I think his vision of
what "Star Trek: Voyager" could have been sounds pretty darned compelling
to me. I sure would have watched it. :)
--Jeff
--
*******************************************************************
"I'm a rogue demon hunter now." "What's a rogue demon?"
-- Wesley & Cordelia, "Angel" --
*******************************************************************
SJohnson
> >All I (and others) ask of you, is to not let your dislike of the series
> >called "Star Trek: DS9" cloud the facts surrounding your opinions of
> >what was (and *is*) 'Star Trek'. And once again- for the upteenth time:
> >DS9 did not "change" the 'face' of Trek on its lone-some; it all
> >actually began with TNG-- in fact, two whole *years* before DS9 took off
> >on its own. Your so-called "war orientation" began in TNG; the
> >Cardassian/Bajoran "mysticism" began in TNG; and your statement that the
> >above items "had absolutely no place in TOS or TNG" is equally as wrong,
> >since it all began (once again) in TNG.
> >
>
> My problem with your analysis is that it is a reinterpretation of the past as *causing* the present.
Uh-uh-uh... Don't go the easy route on me. Not now.
You stated that DS9 started this so-called 'change' in the direction of
what is considered 'true Trek'. My analysis and breakdowns showed that
it did NOT start with DS9. You also stated that such "mysticism" and
"war-oriented" Trek material began from DS9's emphasis on same. Again, I
showed you that it did NOT start with DS9. And once again, you cannot
voice the utterance that TOS and (*especially*) TNG did not have such
issues as it's primary make-up.
You were wrong.
> But not everything in the past points in such a straight line.
That's *deep*, my teacher. ;)
> Yes you can find many elements in the
> earlier series that in hindsight appear to be forerunners of trends
> that were far more pronounced in DS9. Maybe they are. But it seems
> to me that most of those past examples point just as easily somewhere
> else.
Alas, your "seems" seem only to accept anything that can allow for
logical 'wiggle-room'.
No... in this case, your persception about what began with the
gosh-awful DS9 is not valid, once the facts are examined.
> To me, the single overriding fact is that mysticism and the idea of
> war as a crucible of human greatness were two of the major repeating themes of DS9.
Since you used that "to me" caveat, I'll let you keep that opinion-- no
matter how flawed I think it is.
As you all know by now, I've been a long-time aficionado of war
literature, movies/TV shows, and war-orientied media. And, after all
that time, I can usually tell when a director or author seems to be
getting too deep into the 'glory of battle', so to speak; and I have to
tell you, I've NEVER got the feeling that DS9 was trying to put forth
the idea of "war as a crucible of human greatness", as you put it. It
was a god-awful (but inevitable) turn of events in that area of the
Federation, and the UFP/Starfleet simply had to make the best of such a
situation. I saw no glorification of war "as a crucible of human
greatness" there...
And the "mysticism"? My lord, the characters are stationed on DS9--
above a planet belonging to a very spiritial culture. And the so-called
"mysticism" are simply the rather interesting interpretations (from the
indigenous inhabitants) about the doings of an alien race-- the same
aliens that said indigenous inhabitants happen to worship as divine
creatures from their old religious beliefs. It was only inevitable that
any SF characters would be drawn into that creative area.
> That never happened before DS9.
DUH. Of *course* not, Amarna... DS9, uhm, was the only Trek series to
have it's primary location/mission on a stationary point near a disputed
region of space (keyword here: STATIONARY.) Saying "That never happened
before DS9" is kinda... well, silly, given the circumstances. Of course
it didn't. ;)
> I'm not saying, either, that that is all DS9 was, but rather just that there was far
> too much of it for my taste.
See? Now once again, on THAT statement, I have no need to challenge you.
You are simply stating your opinion-- not as some half-assed *fact* like
you've done before.
> >> >So you yourself may choose to selectively disregard all post-Gene Trek
> >> >material as "non-Trek"; but you would be in a very small minority,
> >> >m'lady.
> >>
> >> I think the general public pretty much voted the same as I do. DS9
> >> isn't perceived as Trek. I've had mainstream Trek fans (people who
> >> liked the show and absorbed some of the Trek mindset but didn't/don't
> >> always watch) say that to me. But I want to emphasize that that
> >> doesn't make DS9 a bad thing. Personally, I don't understand why you
> >> seem to feel offended at the suggestion that DS9 isn't Trek.
> >
> >I'm afraid you give yourself too much credit, Ms. A. ;)
>
> You did say you were becoming irritated. Even if I did cause it,
> it's not something I would give myself "credit" for.
Touche. ;)
> >I'm not "offended" by your "suggestion" (nice wording, BTW!!) that DS9
> >isn't Trek; I'm just not going to let you make a comment like that
> >without you giving some actual facts to your argument. Yes, you gave
> >your own opinions, 'tis true; but you did not state a valid case for
> >same. Hence, my futher comments on it.
> >
> >> To me, whether something conforms or does not conform to the Trek formula has
> >> very little to do with whether I like it. TOS and TNG conformed, but
> >> I didn't care that much about them. I actually liked DS9 better than
> >> either of them, because I think its best shows were better.
> >
> >TOS was in another era (both in our real time, and in the UFP's
> >timeline); TNG "comformed" to its _own_ timeline, and to the events in
> >that time.
>
> You can't be serious. Both shows were all over the place about the
> Prime Directive. That's why fans can never agree on what it means.
And they never *will*, Amarma. That's the beauty of it. But my main
point in the above still stands: As much as each of the people in those
differing eras will try, circumstances in those eras will dictate
whether the ideals of the 22nd century UFP (or our 1960's ST) can be
carried over, en masse, to the 23rd century UFP (or to our late
80's/early 90's version of ST). Methinks Gene, Rick, Brandon, Ron, et
al, answered that question for us. No 'conformity' is needed in that
particular creative area.
[snip]
> >> It isn't simple. There have been hundreds of Trek episodes and many
> >> silly things done and said. Continuity of the kind you're talking
> >> about gets harder and harder all the time.
> >
> >Please: Define "continuity of the kind you're talking about" before you
> >attach such a label to me. I've never asked them to do anything more
> >difficult in this area that other long-running series (TV, novels, etc.)
> >haven't done for themselves-- and with far greater results, I might add.
> >You lost me on that one...
>
> I understand you to be talking about factual continuity. That's the
> kind I mean.
Well, 'factual' continuity from creative angle would be the gripe, tis
true. Granted, this is different from an actual historical-based
continuity. The latter allows you no room for lattidude, while the
former allows you just *oodles* of room-- provided you don't do
something as blatantly off-kilter as bringing on a Bajoran character to
a episode, and instantly make him sound like he's some important
crewmember (when he was never even *seen* from in the series five whole
years...) <g>
[snip]
> >> >> Maybe not, but it is still shabby. And unprofessional.
> >> >
> >> >The whistle-blower is often labeled as such, Amarna. And we know what
> >> >bastards all those damned whistle-blowers have been, right..? ;)
> >>
> >> I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.
> >
> >Disagreement *agreed* ;)
>
> Ah! Closure.
<heh heh>
NOW it is..!
SJohnson
SJohnson
>
> Amarna wrote:
> >
> > To me, the single overriding fact is that mysticism and the idea of
> > war as a crucible of human greatness were two of the major repeating
> > themes of DS9. That never happened before DS9. I'm not saying,
> > either, that that is all DS9 was, but rather just that there was far
> > too much of it for my taste.
>
> from a bygone age. Remember "Whom Gods Destroy," when Kirk told the
> wacko ex-captain that his exploits at Axanar were required reading at
> the Academy but that Kirk's visit to Axanar had been as a part of a
> *peace* mission? OTOH, attitudes often change to suit the times, as
> can be seen by the different ways the Vietnam and Gulf wars were
> treated. By the standards of most "traditional" fans, the Federation
> definitely lost some ground on the path to "improving the human
> condition" during the TNG and DS9 years.
Couldn't have said it better, Gene... :)
Indeed, those same so-called 'ideals' from one era doesn't automatically
transfer itself to another era. I mean, we've seen our own ideals change
drastically in less than a quarter century; imagine what changes it
would be after almost a century...
What was once a utopian-styled future in one century could just as
easily change to a darker future in the dawn of the next.
SJohnson
Laura Ware
Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:muj89s0a0j2o5uiku...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 05:29:41 GMT, SJohnson <mede...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Amarna wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 22:50:49 GMT, SJohnson <mede...@mediaone.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >BMJ wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:vqjs8skma85be74es...@4ax.com...
> >
<Snip>
Ok, maybe this is rather simplistic of me, but since DS9 took place in the
Trek universe, doesn't that make it Trek? What makes a show Trek or not
Trek?
<Snip>
Granted it gets harder - but to ignore Starfleet Headquarters being trashed
in DS9 during "Pathfinder" and the Genetic superman wars (forget the name at
the moment) when Voyager went back to the 90's was unnecessary - except TPTB
don't want to be bothered. This is a slap to fans who have followed the
shows for ages....
Laura Ware
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 17:22:14 GMT, SJohnson <mede...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Amarna wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 05:29:41 GMT, SJohnson <mede...@mediaone.net>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >[snippage (for length's sake)]
> My problem with your analysis is that it is a reinterpretation of the
> past as *causing* the present. But not everything in the past points
> in such a straight line. Yes you can find many elements in the
> earlier series that in hindsight appear to be forerunners of trends
> that were far more pronounced in DS9. Maybe they are. But it seems
> to me that most of those past examples point just as easily somewhere
> else.
>
> To me, the single overriding fact is that mysticism and the idea of
> war as a crucible of human greatness were two of the major repeating
> themes of DS9.
Waitasec. I never got "war as a crucible of human greatness" from DS9.
More like "War is terrible but sometimes you have to fight" (And HOW many
fans complained that DS9 ignored the war for episodes like "Take Me Out to
the Holosuite?")
As far as the mysticism is concerned...it was for the most part confined to
non-Federation aliens, with the exception of Sisko, and the series made it
clear that Starfleet was never totally comfortable with the concept...
Ta'Teria
"Laura Ware" <law...@strato.net> wrote in message
news:vnhl4.7228$ox5.2...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> As far as the mysticism is concerned...it was for the most part confined
to
> non-Federation aliens, with the exception of Sisko, and the series made it
> clear that Starfleet was never totally comfortable with the concept...
True, but like most military organizations, SF doesnt like what it cant
predict or control.
Amarna
wrote:
[snip]
The eugenics wars was something they were right to ignore. I think it
would have been crazy to go back to the present and change what we
already know to be true. Better to just forget the mistake, which was
made in TOS.
Also, it is likely that most viewers neither remember nor care about
that stuff.
-- Amarna
Amarna
Knops) wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:27:13 -0500, Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>I think that's part of the problem. Classic Trek had almost *no* character
>>>development, and I think that when all's said and done this is what's important.
>>>Sure, you get the development in Seven, the Doc, and Janeway, but about the
>>>other characters? In DS9, I could see the evolution of all the main and
>>>recurring characters. Voyager doesn't have to be about war to be good, but as
>>>Moore said, it *does* have to be about the characters. If you fail there, then
>>>you might as well give up.
>>
>>Perhaps, but I don't think DS9 was any more about the characters than
>>Voyager. Oh sure, things happened to them, but those were plot
>>points, not character development. Take Kai Winn. She started out as
>>a great character, a complex and driven woman with genuine religious
>>conviction and a deep desire to serve her people, but also intolerant
>>and often blinded by personal ambition. By the last year of the
>>series, she was reduced to a crazy, lonely, and pathetic old woman.
>>That's not continuity. It's expediency.
>
>I really hated the way they wrapped up the Bajor plotline at the end
>of DS9, but overall the arc plotline worked.
No, it didn't. That's why the wrap-up stank. To quote Gertrude
Stein, there was no "there" there.
>
>As for Kai Winn, I liked her turning point when she couldn't give up
>the power she had (the conversation with Kira). As I said above, I
>didn't like how they killed her character off, but that's because I
>was expecting something better based on how good the series had been
>to that point.
I was expecting something as bad as what I got.
>>Then there was what's his name. Not Garak (him I liked). The other
>>one. Give me a break! Okay, so he was popular. That's no excuse to
>>bring him back in ten different personalities.
>
>Dukat is who you're thinking of, I suspect. I LOVED his character
>and how he evolved, up to the Pah Wraith crap the last two seasons.
That's **two years** you're talking about.
>His performance in "Sacrifice of Angels" was stunning. The
>conversations between him and Wayoun were priceless!
>
>Damar was also well played, though the relationship between him and
>Dukat did not evolve like I hoped (the Pah Wraith plotline ruined
>everything).
>
>>Voyager is the first ST that has characters who *do* move me. While I
>>may have liked some of the episodes on the other shows, I never cared
>>much for any of the characters.
>
>The Doctor is the only good character on that show. I actually saw
>Robert Picardo in a Round Table Pizza one time and wanted to tell him
>he plays his character extremely well, but I figured he'd rather not
>be bothered by a fan at such a location.
Well, I'm sick of him. He's had some good, even excellent, eps, but
too many overall. The basic premise of his character is nonsense.
I've already written several times about why I think that so I won't
repeat myself here. To take him seriously at all I just have to
pretend the premise is credible. But way too many episodes have
featured him, mainly because his holographic nature gives the writers
more plot latitude.
I like Janeway and find her by far the most compelling captain to
date. And I like Torres and Tuvok and Seven and even Harry better
than any character I've seen on TOS, TNG, or DS9 (Odo was good but had
the same problem as the Doc. Quark was good too but the writers were
not consistent with him).
>Mostly I feel sorry for him for being on such a lousy show, however.
Don't waste your sympathy. He's making a lot of money.
>The same goes for Jeri Lynn Ryan. She's obviously a talented actress
>and she has to dress up in an absurd outfit and parade her breasts
>around each episode. Yes, they look great, but I'd rather have her
>dressed in a way I can take her seriously.
Like Troi on TNG? Or like Kira on DS9?
>I can picture her naked
>using my imagination just fine without the producers helping me. :)
>
>Basically, Ron Moore's comments about Voyager echoed my own thoughts
>quite a bit. It's a shame a guy like him got run out of the show.
>I have little hope for it getting better, that's for sure.
I'm glad he's off Voyager. I would hate to see him do to Voyager what
he did to DS9.
-- Amarna
David B.
> Granted it gets harder - but to ignore Starfleet Headquarters being trashed
> in DS9 during "Pathfinder"
I don't have a problem with that. Starfleet Headquarters was trashed
months (maybe four months or so before the events in "Pathfinder". Long
nough for the place to be repaired.
> and the Genetic superman wars (forget the name at
> the moment) when Voyager went back to the 90's was unnecessary - except TPTB
> don't want to be bothered. This is a slap to fans who have followed the
> shows for ages....
Obviously, the Voyager crew went back to the 90's after the end of the
Eugenics Wars. And as for Los Angeles being intact we don't know if any
of the wars touched America. Khan ruled over in the Middle East and Asia
so the wars could've been overseas.
--
Scully: Snake handling, they didn't talk about that in catechism.
Mulder: Maybe not, but I used to know a couple of Catholic school girls,
who were experts at it. - The X-Files: "Signs and Wonders"
Michael Hafer
>would have been crazy to go back to the present and change what we
>already know to be true. Better to just forget the mistake, which was
>made in TOS.
>
>Also, it is likely that most viewers neither remember nor care about
>that stuff.
>
>
>
>-- Amarna
Granted, the Eugenics Wars mentioned in TOS might have been a small tidbit
forgotten by most of the modern Trek fans, BUT, when Voyager writers can't keep
facts straight *FROM THEIR OWN SERIES* then they have some serious problems.
When Voyager's writers can't understand the concept of backing up computer
files, they have a problem. When Voyager's writers ignore continuity within
their own scripts, they have a problem. When all Voyager's writers can think of
for adversaries are THE KAZON and HIROGEN, then they have a problem. When
Voyager's writers come up with one new kind of warp drive per season in order
to jump their characters home at 10,000ly at a time, then they have a problem.
When Voyager's writers IGNORED the tension between the Maquis crew and
Starfleet crew after the first couple episodes that was part of the MAIN
PREMISE for Voyager, then they have a problem. When they attempt to justify
technobabble dangers of the week with more techno-crap, and have their
characters defeat the technobabble danger of the week with more
techno-babbley-gook, then they have a problem. When Voyager's writers haven't
even watched a Star Trek episode ( as some have admitted ), then they have a
problem. When Voyager's producers make statements like, "continuity is crap,"
then they have a problem. Armana my dear, it's not that hard to maintain a
Trek-continuity, despite how many episodes there have been. For Chrissake
there's something called the Star Trek Encyclopeadia. I doubt any of Voyager's
writers have a copy.
Michael Hafer
Michael Hafer
>>and she has to dress up in an absurd outfit and parade her breasts
>>around each episode. Yes, they look great, but I'd rather have her
>>dressed in a way I can take her seriously.
>
>Like Troi on TNG? Or like Kira on DS9?
>
Generally, I found Troi's outfits more tactful than the vaccuum formed crap on
7 of 9. Troi eventually got a uniform. Where's Seven's???? As for Kira...um,
her outfit was basically just like all the other Bajoran Militia.
Michael Hafer
Laurinda Chamberlin
>PMFJI, but there are a couple of points I want to take a whack at here....
>Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:muj89s0a0j2o5uiku...@4ax.com...
[...]
>> I think the general public pretty much voted the same as I do. DS9
>> isn't perceived as Trek. I've had mainstream Trek fans (people who
>> liked the show and absorbed some of the Trek mindset but didn't/don't
>> always watch) say that to me. But I want to emphasize that that
>> doesn't make DS9 a bad thing. Personally, I don't understand why you
>> seem to feel offended at the suggestion that DS9 isn't Trek.
>Ok, maybe this is rather simplistic of me, but since DS9 took place in the
>Trek universe, doesn't that make it Trek? What makes a show Trek or not
>Trek? [...]
That should be good for the usual can of worms.
Looking at it in a simple-minded way, one could make any show, no matter
how bad, by slapping the characters into Starfleet uniforms and call it
"Star Trek" (some may argue this has already been done), but there's a
little more going on here. "Star Trek" signifies, that is, it conjures
up a whole range of ideas, from the visual to the philosophical. A lot
of us have trouble pinning down just what those ideas are, and a lot of
us pin them down too much.
I've heard arguments that DS9 isn't Trek, and I've heard arguments that
it's the only true heir to TOS. My opinions fall much closer to the latter,
for the simple reason that Trek is basically a meditative, allegorical
exploration of the human moral landscape, set in an SF context and
strongly imbued with Western values. A certain optimism about the future
of mankind is typical of Trek, but too much of a good thing becomes
dramatically sterile and requires ever greater contrivances to keep up
the suspense *and* allow the heroes to remain morally pure. If we say the
crew must be free of interpersonal conflict, we lose much of the charm
and reality of actual human interaction. To say that spirituality is a
backwards concept that has no value for the mature folks in the Federation
is to ignore its vitality in real life.
By using Bajoran religion and a deeply threatening military conflict as
devices, DS9 simply opened up dramatic territory that had been almost
walled off by the greater restrictions TNG placed on its characters. If
Trek is viewed as a morality play, DS9 did absolutely nothing to disqualify
itself as part of the whole, and actually did much to enhance it. The
times I thought DS9 strayed from Trek were when it abandoned its firm
grounding in the "human" in order to make Dukat the antichrist and to rush
through a confusing, mythical resolution to Sisko's ultimate fate.
As for Ron Moore, I don't have much of a problem with his public comments.
Is he disinterested and professional? No. Is he right? Yes. However, as
long as he's being so voluble, I wish he'd tell us what the hell went
wrong at the end of DS9.
--
Laurinda She walked by herself, and
all places were alike to her.
ALEX ROSENZWEIG
<ama...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>The eugenics wars was something they were right to ignore.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with that.
>I think it would have been crazy to go back to the present and
>change what we already know to be true.
Except that, in the context of the Star Trek Universe, "what we
already know to be true" is that Earth fought a major planetary
war from 1992 to 1996. I think that altering that history would
be the wrong choice.
>Better to just forget the mistake, which was made in TOS.
Except it wasn't a mistake. It was Star Trek's establishing what
was then its future history. Our reality and Trek continuity are
not the same, and shouldn't be forced to be the same at this
point. What Star Trek needs to do is keep track of its own
continuity.
Also, please correct me if I err here, but I seemed to draw the
subtle implication from the comment above that because the
continuity item was drawn from TOS, it is somehow less
important. Assuming that that's the intent, as a Trek fan who
has followed Star Trek from the early '70s all the way through
the current shows--including Voyager--I must take exception to
that. TOS is no less important than the more recent series.
>Also, it is likely that most viewers neither remember nor care
>about that stuff.
Most viewers neither remember nor care about last week's
episode, but would you suggest that the producers ignore that,
too?
No, I think that if a series seeks to bear the title "Star
Trek", it brings with that title the responsibility to keep
continuity with what has come before...including--nay,
*especially*--TOS.
Best,
Alex
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Laura Ware
> >Granted it gets harder - but to ignore Starfleet Headquarters being
trashed
> >in DS9 during "Pathfinder" and the Genetic superman wars (forget the name
at
> >the moment) when Voyager went back to the 90's was unnecessary - except
TPTB
> >don't want to be bothered. This is a slap to fans who have followed the
> >shows for ages....
> >
> The eugenics wars was something they were right to ignore. I think it
> would have been crazy to go back to the present and change what we
> already know to be true. Better to just forget the mistake, which was
> made in TOS.
>
> Also, it is likely that most viewers neither remember nor care about
> that stuff.
Most fans do remember. And let me point out that there was no Edith Keeler
in the 1930's, or Astronaut Christopher (when the Enterprise was flung back
in time) - yet those things are part of the Trek universe. The Eugenics
wars is a part of TREK history, even if they weren't part of ours, and just
a mention would've been kind to the fans.
Laura Ware
news:389684DA...@hotmail.com...
> Laura Ware wrote:
>
> > Granted it gets harder - but to ignore Starfleet Headquarters being
trashed
> > in DS9 during "Pathfinder"
>
> months (maybe four months or so before the events in "Pathfinder". Long
> nough for the place to be repaired.
>
> > the moment) when Voyager went back to the 90's was unnecessary - except
TPTB
> > don't want to be bothered. This is a slap to fans who have followed the
> > shows for ages....
>
> Eugenics Wars. And as for Los Angeles being intact we don't know if any
> of the wars touched America. Khan ruled over in the Middle East and Asia
> so the wars could've been overseas.
I would buy both those explanations if Braga had not publically stated he
was basically ignoring continuity....
Anonymous
wrote:
>Most fans do remember.
I've got to agree with Amarna, somewhat. Most fans don't remember.
It just so happens that the fans that do are a lot more vocal than the
others. The fan base for Voyager does not simply consist of the
contributors to this newsgroup. There are many Voyager fans who have
never seen TNG, DS9, and especiallt TOS.
>And let me point out that there was no Edith Keeler
>in the 1930's, or Astronaut Christopher (when the Enterprise was flung back
>in time) - yet those things are part of the Trek universe. The Eugenics
>wars is a part of TREK history, even if they weren't part of ours, and just
>a mention would've been kind to the fans.
But it didn't have to be absolutely necessary for the episode to work,
did it?
I'm not a big fan of Future's End. But I have seen TOS. And I do
know about the Eugenics War. And I quite simply didn't care that it
wasn't mentioned. It had no impact on the story at hand, so why is it
so important?
There have been so many excursions into the past since TOS, that you
could make any number of theories as to why the war didn't happen in
Voyager. Perhaps the first genetic cloning in Trek history was done
on George, the humpback whale. And Kirk's foray into the past and
rescuing him from such a fate postponed that test, preventing the
Eugenics War from ever happening.
Laura Ware
Steve Christianson <stevechr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38970F...@yahoo.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
>
> ALEX ROSENZWEIG wrote:
> >
> > Except that, in the context of the Star Trek Universe, "what we
> > already know to be true" is that Earth fought a major planetary
> > war from 1992 to 1996.
>
>
Bill Clinton's first term? (Sorry, that was impossible to resist)
SKNavis
>long as he's being so voluble, I wish he'd tell us what the hell went
>wrong at the end of DS9.
Amen to that! My favorite TV show of all time went down the tubes near the end
of season six ("Profit and Lace" and the bungling of Jadzia's departure) and
things didn't get much better in the final season. Started off strong! I was
blown away by the revelations about Sisko's existence and there were number of
strong episodes in the early going (Even the fluff like "Take Me Out To the
Holosuite" worked). I especially like the episodes that dealt with Nog's
tragedy and how he coped with it.
Then things took a serious downturn about midway through. Dukat as a spritual
leader for a group of disenchanted Bajorans? Yeah, right. And Ezri, Ezri,
Ezri, everywhere you looked. Unlike another show that hastily replaced an
attractive female cast member, at least DS9 put the "new girl" in an actual
uniform like everyone else and didn't parade her around like a piece of meat..
That said, DS9 still allowed this new character to dominate the storylines,and
take up too much time best spent on wrapping up the show's many loose plot
threads. Where Jadzia was a scientist, warrior and confidant to the captain,
Ezri was "the girlfriend" with Julian, Quark and Worf all lining up to screw
her. Two of them actually got to, whereas only one did before. Is that
progress?
I enjoyed most of The Final Chapter, but things just went to crap in Sloane's
final appearance. Not only was the plot ridculous, but the story was a real
yawner. What an insult to an interesting new villain (Sloane and Section 31
could have made for good movie fodder at some point), and to the series in
general. Then that final epsiode. What the hell were they thinking? An
anti-climactic ending to the war, a lack of closure over the fates of Bajor and
Cardassia and, most disappointing of all, Sisko's "trial." We waited two years
to see Sisko push Dukat off of a cliff? Then Sisko becomes a Prophet and we
don't even get him saying goodbye to his son? Hell, Sisko wasn't even in the
last 20 minutes of the show! I can only hope that there will be DS9 in some
form in feature or TV movies someday. They need to go back and give the
closure they didn't provide.
I blame most of DS9's unfotunate downfall on Ira Behr. He spent too much time
writing god-awful Ferengi shows and moving the show away from the politics of
Bajor and Cardassia towards more mystial crap like the whole
Prophet/Pagh-wraith thing, spirits possessing Dukat, etc.
More than anything though, DS9 blew it by killing Jadzia and bringing in Ezri.
The last thing the show needed was to spend time developing an all-new
character in the final season. They either needed to pay Terry Farrell more,
or write her out by having Jadzia command a ship in the fleet for the war
effort. That way, they could have brought her back for the final show. It
would have left Kira as the only female regular, but DS9 would have gotten
along fine with one less character.
Shaun
Eric Knops
wrote:
>>I really hated the way they wrapped up the Bajor plotline at the end
>>of DS9, but overall the arc plotline worked.
>
>No, it didn't. That's why the wrap-up stank. To quote Gertrude
>Stein, there was no "there" there.
I could think of ten ways of ending the arc plotline better than they
did. If anything, it annoys me even more that they managed to still
screw it up.
>>As for Kai Winn, I liked her turning point when she couldn't give up
>>the power she had (the conversation with Kira). As I said above, I
>>didn't like how they killed her character off, but that's because I
>>was expecting something better based on how good the series had been
>>to that point.
>
>I was expecting something as bad as what I got.
Maybe that's just your bias talking.
>>>Then there was what's his name. Not Garak (him I liked). The other
>>>one. Give me a break! Okay, so he was popular. That's no excuse to
>>>bring him back in ten different personalities.
>>
>>Dukat is who you're thinking of, I suspect. I LOVED his character
>>and how he evolved, up to the Pah Wraith crap the last two seasons.
>
>That's **two years** you're talking about.
And? The show was on for 7 years!
The third season of TOS was pretty bad, but that doesn't mean the
whole show was flawed.
And Voyager has yet to have a great season.
>Well, I'm sick of him. He's had some good, even excellent, eps, but
>too many overall. The basic premise of his character is nonsense.
>I've already written several times about why I think that so I won't
>repeat myself here. To take him seriously at all I just have to
>pretend the premise is credible. But way too many episodes have
>featured him, mainly because his holographic nature gives the writers
>more plot latitude.
I'll agree with you the premise is nonsense, or that at least they
failed to properly establish a premise. I hate just about everything
having to do with holodecks, holocharacters, or holoanything. I
groaned when it was first introduced with TNG. So, I barely even pay
attention to any "transgressions" where holo-technology is concerned.
Besides, Voyager is full of techno-babble everywhere else, so why pick
on the Doctor?
The doctor, however, is a good character, and is well played.
>I like Janeway and find her by far the most compelling captain to
>date. And I like Torres and Tuvok and Seven and even Harry better
>than any character I've seen on TOS, TNG, or DS9 (Odo was good but had
>the same problem as the Doc. Quark was good too but the writers were
>not consistent with him).
Janeway sucks. Mulgrew sucks. Everything about her is horrible.
Tuvok I like because he's a Vulcan, though I can't think of much
they've done with him I liked besides the Tuvix episode.
The other characters make no impression on me or are wasted.
>>Mostly I feel sorry for him for being on such a lousy show, however.
>
>Don't waste your sympathy. He's making a lot of money.
There's more to living than making money. There are many ways of
making money, while there are some joys in life that just require hard
work or other virtues. I would think most actors are in the
profession because they want to be great actors, while the money is
just icing on the cake.
That said, I still want a Subaru WRX, a few hundred DVD's, a big
house, and...
>>The same goes for Jeri Lynn Ryan. She's obviously a talented actress
>>and she has to dress up in an absurd outfit and parade her breasts
>>around each episode. Yes, they look great, but I'd rather have her
>>dressed in a way I can take her seriously.
>
>Like Troi on TNG? Or like Kira on DS9?
I hated Troi's outfit as well. Putting her in a starfleet uniform in
later seasons looked a lot better to me. But she wasn't there just
to parade her body... if she was, they should have found an actress
with a better body, quite honestly. A telepath "counselor" was just
a bad idea to start with. A telepath, an android, a child prodigy,
and a blind man with X-ray vision... early TNG was the fucking
Superfriends. Thankfully, they mostly forgot about Geordi's vision
and Troi's "abilities", and sent the kid off to cadet school.
What about Kira? She never did anything for me, though she was at
least a major character. Dax was a better example of pointless
eye-candy.
>I'm glad he's off Voyager. I would hate to see him do to Voyager what
>he did to DS9.
There's nothing bad he could do to Voyager that hasn't been done
already.
I'm sorry, but so much of what Moore said in the interview rang true
about Voyager. Why are they using Romulans? Why so many episodes
set on Earth? Why bring in TNG characters for episodes? These are
all indications that they don't know how to make the basic concept
work, or are unwilling to see it through.
Moore is right about how the ship should change. I've seen it get
trashed on many occasions, only to be returned to pristine condition.
I can understand the writers not wanting to make changes from episode
to episode, but there should at least be a gradual change from season
to season. And why are they still walking around on the ship like
they're a bunch of Starfleet officers trying to move up in their
careers? They're going to be living on that ship the rest of their
lives. There should be a whole new Voyager self-government and
micro-society evolving, and it isn't. I agree with Moore that the
crew should be making Voyager THEIR home, rather than Starfleet
property. They should be having kids. There should be
relationships. Moore is right about all of these things. You talk
about not accepting the Doctor's premise, when the whole show's
premise is not being followed. Moore is right on when he says you
wouldn't even buy this stuff if you saw it on Gilligan's Island.
Amarna
>Amarna <ama...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
>news:gbcc9skgnesgpi6g4...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 14:55:22 GMT, "Laura Ware" <law...@strato.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Granted it gets harder - but to ignore Starfleet Headquarters being
>trashed
>> >in DS9 during "Pathfinder" and the Genetic superman wars (forget the name
>at
>> >the moment) when Voyager went back to the 90's was unnecessary - except
>TPTB
>> >don't want to be bothered. This is a slap to fans who have followed the
>> >shows for ages....
>> >
>> The eugenics wars was something they were right to ignore. I think it
>> would have been crazy to go back to the present and change what we
>> already know to be true. Better to just forget the mistake, which was
>> made in TOS.
>>
>> Also, it is likely that most viewers neither remember nor care about
>> that stuff.
>
>Most fans do remember. And let me point out that there was no Edith Keeler
>in the 1930's, or Astronaut Christopher (when the Enterprise was flung back
>in time) - yet those things are part of the Trek universe. The Eugenics
>wars is a part of TREK history, even if they weren't part of ours, and just
>a mention would've been kind to the fans.
>
Sorry, that doesn't compute. I am not suggesting changing episodes
from the original series. They stand in their own context. But
current series should have the opportunity to do the same. If TOS had
portrayed earth of the 1960s as a place where, say, the sky is orange
due to pollution, people would have rightly dismissed it as nutty.
The same is true of the eugenics wars. A mention of them would only
diminish the present-day series.
-- Amarna
Amarna
<alexrN...@castle.net.invalid> wrote:
>In article <gbcc9skgnesgpi6g4...@4ax.com>, Amarna
><ama...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>>The eugenics wars was something they were right to ignore.
>
>I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with that.
>
>>I think it would have been crazy to go back to the present and
>>change what we already know to be true.
>
>Except that, in the context of the Star Trek Universe, "what we
>already know to be true" is that Earth fought a major planetary
>war from 1992 to 1996. I think that altering that history would
>be the wrong choice.
>
>>Better to just forget the mistake, which was made in TOS.
>
>Except it wasn't a mistake. It was Star Trek's establishing what
>was then its future history. Our reality and Trek continuity are
>not the same, and shouldn't be forced to be the same at this
>point. What Star Trek needs to do is keep track of its own
>continuity.
It *was* a mistake, and a stupid one. Most people are not interested
in watching a Star Trek show that takes place entirely in a different
universe. Mainstream fans are not obsessed with the minutiae that
keep fanatic fans awake at night. But they would notice if Star Trek
portrayed a present on Earth that is nothing like the world they
actually know. Nothing could be more harmful to your vaunted Star
Trek "continuity" than that.
>Also, please correct me if I err here, but I seemed to draw the
>subtle implication from the comment above that because the
>continuity item was drawn from TOS, it is somehow less
>important. Assuming that that's the intent, as a Trek fan who
>has followed Star Trek from the early '70s all the way through
>the current shows--including Voyager--I must take exception to
>that. TOS is no less important than the more recent series.
You don't speak for all long-time Trek viewers. I've followed Trek
since the early 70s and I even watched some of the original airings.
Very very few of the shows over the years have been good. The Star
Trek attraction has been primarily that it is Wagon Train in space.
It's a formula that worked, despite its many deficiencies. But sadly,
fanatic fans have tried to make it a religion.
I don't rank the shows on their "importance." They aren't important.
I rank them on their entertainment value, their acting, and their
substance (on those occasions when they have any).
TOS was almost a cartoon. The characters were archetypes and totally
predictable. The show was grossly sexist and usually pulled its
punches on anything controversial even though there *were* other
television shows facing those issues. And the reason for the pulled
punches was money. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not rewrite
history into what we wish it had been at the expense of what it was.
I loved the idea of TOS, but the show itself never connected with me.
I can say almost the same of TNG. It improved over TOS, but not
enough. And DS9, while it had a few good episodic shows, went off on
a pop-mysticism tangent that completely disregarded the mass audience,
who rightly dumped it. It did more damage to the Trek franchise than
Voyager ever could (unless Ron Moore were writing Voyager).
>>Also, it is likely that most viewers neither remember nor care
>>about that stuff.
>
>Most viewers neither remember nor care about last week's
>episode, but would you suggest that the producers ignore that,
>too?
I didn't. It's possible to care about the show without losing all
perspective about what matters in it. Creating a phony war and then
bending the portrayal of earth in the present to support that stupid
mistake is plain nutty.
>No, I think that if a series seeks to bear the title "Star
>Trek", it brings with that title the responsibility to keep
>continuity with what has come before...including--nay,
>*especially*--TOS.
Well, I don't. Time passes. Things change.
>
>Best,
>Alex
-- Amarna
Helen & Bob
First Run. If you were not there, you really do NOT know the impact TOS
had on Entertainment and society. FOR ITS TIME, (and to judge a TV show
in any other context is sophistry and elitism of the worst kind), ST:TOS
was radical, ground breaking, leading cutting edge in social issues. I am
now going into the one paragraph I wanted to address from your post.
Amarna wrote:
> TOS was almost a cartoon.
For its day, it was radical. Compare it to cartoons of its day, and you
will find that you are being very insulting. ESPECIALLY the first season,
when you had real science fiction authors writing scripts. Now, if you
want to compare it to the third season, you have a much better case.
The characters were archetypes and totally predictable. No. ST:TOS
created the archetypes that other shows copied. There had NEVER been a
character like Spock before. A Ships Captain that was a Lecher, and kept
his command? NO, on any other show the character would have been there
for ONE show before being "rightfully punished". I will grant that the
Engineer being Scottish was trite. An ASIAN officer? A BLACK WOMAN
COMMISSIONED OFFICER????? Name one previously on TV. Uhura, a character so
socially important that when Nichole wanted to leave the show, Martin
Luther King Jr. told her that she couldn't, as her image was yo important
to the black community, black children in particular.
The show was grossly sexist and usually pulled its punches on anything
controversial even though there *were* other television shows facing those
issues.
Yea, sure, like the FIRST interracial kiss on National TV. Boy, that's
really hiding behind anything that would be an issue. Hell, every show
was about a current issue in some way. Actually, instead of hiding from
controversy, the show actually became too preachy for many people. By the
way, could you name some of these other shows that were facing the issues
you say TOSS was avoiding?
And the reason for the pulled punches was money. Nothing wrong with that,
but let's not rewrite history into what we wish it had been at the expense
of what it was.
I am not re-writing history. I was 30 when the show started. I damn well
remember. I also had a good friend doing VEX for the show in its last
season.
> I loved the idea of TOS, but the show itself never connected with me.
> -- Amarna
I take no exception to the last sentence, for that is a personal taste
statement, and taste is taste, not arguable.
Bob (AKA boothby)
Timo S Saloniemi
>On Tue, 01 Feb 2000 07:30:56 -0800, ALEX ROSENZWEIG
><alexrN...@castle.net.invalid> wrote:
>>Except it wasn't a mistake. It was Star Trek's establishing what
>>was then its future history. Our reality and Trek continuity are
>>not the same, and shouldn't be forced to be the same at this
>>point. What Star Trek needs to do is keep track of its own
>>continuity.
>It *was* a mistake, and a stupid one. Most people are not interested
>in watching a Star Trek show that takes place entirely in a different
>universe. Mainstream fans are not obsessed with the minutiae that
>keep fanatic fans awake at night. But they would notice if Star Trek
>portrayed a present on Earth that is nothing like the world they
>actually know. Nothing could be more harmful to your vaunted Star
>Trek "continuity" than that.
But then again, nothing in TOS is going to be compatible with the
real world anyway. We may have to wait until the 2260s to definitely
prove that there aren't pointy-eared aliens with copper in their green
blood, but we can already say that nothing predicted for the
period between 1960 and 2060 will come true (with the possible exception
of the first Moon mission being launched on a Wednesday...). TOS is
outdated as a description of the future, in ways from subtle (scientific
gaffes, references to minor 1930s or 1960s non-occurrences) to exceedingly
gross (card-programmable computers with tinny voices, crewwomen in
miniskirts, Eugenics wars and other things a non-Trekkie will spot as
faulty from the 2000s point of view - even if for some curious reason
the 2260s *WILL* turn out roughly like TOS!).
Star Trek is a fantasy show anyway, intended to be taken about as
seriously as Batman or Miami Vice. Making it take place in a different
universe would hardly be an "alienating" factor for the audience
at large. That applies to TOS and Voyager alike, despite the slightly
different approaches taken. If possible, Voyager is the less "realistic"
of the two since it is based on a "premise" (ship stranded away from
home) in addition to its underlying scifi-fantasy settings. It may
have tangents to real life, but hardly anybody would be harmed if
those tangents became increasingly rare. And hardly anybody would be
harmed if the fantasy setting was kept a bit more self-consistent...
As long as the effort required would not mean ridiculously large
expenditures for Paramount.
>>Also, please correct me if I err here, but I seemed to draw the
>>subtle implication from the comment above that because the
>>continuity item was drawn from TOS, it is somehow less
>>important. Assuming that that's the intent, as a Trek fan who
>>has followed Star Trek from the early '70s all the way through
>>the current shows--including Voyager--I must take exception to
>>that. TOS is no less important than the more recent series.
>You don't speak for all long-time Trek viewers. I've followed Trek
>since the early 70s and I even watched some of the original airings.
>Very very few of the shows over the years have been good. The Star
>Trek attraction has been primarily that it is Wagon Train in space.
>It's a formula that worked, despite its many deficiencies. But sadly,
>fanatic fans have tried to make it a religion.
Would it not work for you if it was a religion in addition to being
a TV show? I think there's theoretically nothing wrong with having
the cake and eating it here. In practice, a self-consistent fantasy
universe may be too much to be asked, but there's no specific
reason to actively steer away from it.
For me, Trek holds the double fascination of seeing the actors
pull it off with straight faces without making it overtly camp
like Batman, and the writers actually pretending there is a
Trek universe there even though there really isn't. If the
two groups fail to pull that off, then Trek isn't much of a
show by itself, on that I agree with you. But if they perform
their spectacular juggle as well as they have done so far,
then they are essentially doing the same thing any good
novelist does.
>>Most viewers neither remember nor care about last week's
>>episode, but would you suggest that the producers ignore that,
>>too?
>I didn't. It's possible to care about the show without losing all
>perspective about what matters in it. Creating a phony war and then
>bending the portrayal of earth in the present to support that stupid
>mistake is plain nutty.
<Double-take> So you think phony events are stupid mistakes?
Isn't the whole tube thing based on the premise that people like
to see phony events? I thought phoniness was the main reason
for watching anything beyond Discovery Channel or BBC
documentaries. Phony wars always draw in big crowds, and DS9
made good use of that. The phonier the universe, the more you
can fit entertaining wars into it (the ones in the real world
aren't very entertaining, even on CNN). Shouldn't Roddenberry
(or Coon) be praised for giving us the Eugenics wars as a
possible future well of fortune for Paramount?
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>Sorry, that doesn't compute. I am not suggesting changing episodes
>from the original series. They stand in their own context. But
>current series should have the opportunity to do the same. If TOS had
>portrayed earth of the 1960s as a place where, say, the sky is orange
>due to pollution, people would have rightly dismissed it as nutty.
Umm, I find that very hard to believe. Anybody watching TOS as it
stood and enjoying it would have taken an orange-sky Earth as the most
natural thing in the world. The Star Trek world, that is. The weirder
the Earth, the more removed from the grim reality, the better for the
show.
>The same is true of the eugenics wars. A mention of them would only
>diminish the present-day series.
Since when has a mention of a war diminished any series? Wars always
draw in crowds...
Timo Saloniemi
ser...@my-deja.com
"Laura Ware" <law...@strato.net> wrote:
> David B. <both...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:389684DA...@hotmail.com...> >
being
> trashed
> > > in DS9 during "Pathfinder"
> >
> > I don't have a problem with that. Starfleet Headquarters was trashed
> > months (maybe four months or so before the events in "Pathfinder".
Long
> > nough for the place to be repaired.
> >
> > > and the Genetic superman wars (forget the name at
> > > the moment) when Voyager went back to the 90's was unnecessary -
except
> TPTB
> > > don't want to be bothered. This is a slap to fans who have
followed the
> > > shows for ages....
> >
> > Obviously, the Voyager crew went back to the 90's after the end of
the
> > Eugenics Wars. And as for Los Angeles being intact we don't know if
any
> > of the wars touched America. Khan ruled over in the Middle East and
Asia
> > so the wars could've been overseas.
>
> I would buy both those explanations if Braga had not publically
stated he
> was basically ignoring continuity....
>
>
Well, in the case of the Eugenics War it wasn't a *casual* or
accidental ignorance of continuity, at least. From what Braga has said
publicly, they thought about the Eugenics War angle and decided for a
couple of specific reasons that it should be ignored. I have no
problem with that. After thirty-odd years, absolute obesiance to
continuity is as likely to sink "Star Trek" as anything else.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lisa
"Laura Ware" <law...@strato.net> wrote in message news:vnhl4.7228> >
<SNIPPED>>
> > To me, the single overriding fact is that mysticism and the idea of
> > war as a crucible of human greatness were two of the major repeating
> > themes of DS9.
>
> Waitasec. I never got "war as a crucible of human greatness" from DS9.
> More like "War is terrible but sometimes you have to fight" (And HOW many
> fans complained that DS9 ignored the war for episodes like "Take Me Out to
> the Holosuite?")
> As far as the mysticism is concerned...it was for the most part confined
to
> non-Federation aliens, with the exception of Sisko, and the series made it
> clear that Starfleet was never totally comfortable with the concept...
One of the things I enjoyed the most about the war aspect of DS9 was the
fact that they did do other episodes in between, because to me that was more
realistic. Life does go on during a war, people make the best of the life
that they have and what it has to offer them. Ask anyone who has lived
through a war. I'm sure they didn't just sit home every night saying "oh we
can't go out and enjoy ourselves because there's a war on"
I think it was a big issue for Sisko that Starfleet did not condone his
relationship with the Bajorans as their Emmissiary. He did try on occasions
to deny this side of his spirituality, but always ended up coming back to
it.
--
Lisa
"When I'm feeling weak
And my pain walks down a one way street
I look above
And I know I'll always be blessed with love"
Lisa
"Ta'Teria" <tat...@delete.this.you.poo.poo.head.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Rqhl4.7238$ox5.2...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...> news:vnhl4.7228$ox5.2...@tw11.nn.bcandid.com...
> > As far as the mysticism is concerned...it was for the most part confined
> to
> > non-Federation aliens, with the exception of Sisko, and the series made
it
> > clear that Starfleet was never totally comfortable with the concept...
>
> predict or control.
>
Very insightful comment young Ta'.
Laura Ware
<Anonymous> wrote in message news:38972e00...@news3.ibm.net...
>
> I've got to agree with Amarna, somewhat. Most fans don't remember.
> It just so happens that the fans that do are a lot more vocal than the
> others. The fan base for Voyager does not simply consist of the
> contributors to this newsgroup. There are many Voyager fans who have
> never seen TNG, DS9, and especiallt TOS.
I don't know about that. I think I would draw a distinction between viewers
and fans, and one characteristic might be the continuity question.
> >And let me point out that there was no Edith Keeler
> >in the 1930's, or Astronaut Christopher (when the Enterprise was flung
back
> >in time) - yet those things are part of the Trek universe. The Eugenics
> >wars is a part of TREK history, even if they weren't part of ours, and
just
> >a mention would've been kind to the fans.
>
> But it didn't have to be absolutely necessary for the episode to work,
> did it?
But it wouldn't have hurt the episode to keep up the continuity, would it?
> I'm not a big fan of Future's End. But I have seen TOS. And I do
> know about the Eugenics War. And I quite simply didn't care that it
> wasn't mentioned. It had no impact on the story at hand, so why is it
> so important?
>
> There have been so many excursions into the past since TOS, that you
> could make any number of theories as to why the war didn't happen in
> Voyager. Perhaps the first genetic cloning in Trek history was done
> on George, the humpback whale. And Kirk's foray into the past and
> rescuing him from such a fate postponed that test, preventing the
> Eugenics War from ever happening.
Just a mention would've been a nice nod to fans. But we will have to agree
to disagree on this...
Laura Ware
> portrayed earth of the 1960s as a place where, say, the sky is orange
> due to pollution, people would have rightly dismissed it as nutty.
> diminish the present-day series.
>
>
Why?
Michael Hafer
>I blame most of DS9's unfotunate downfall on Ira Behr. He spent too much
>time
>writing god-awful Ferengi shows and moving the show away from the politics of
>Bajor and Cardassia towards more mystial crap like the whole
>Prophet/Pagh-wraith thing, spirits possessing Dukat, etc.
I agree with you there. Bajor should have had a bigger role in the outcome of
the series, since that was the reason Sisco was there to begin with.
>More than anything though, DS9 blew it by killing Jadzia and bringing in
>Ezri.
>The last thing the show needed was to spend time developing an all-new
>character in the final season. They either needed to pay Terry Farrell more,
>or write her out by having Jadzia command a ship in the fleet for the war
>effort. That way, they could have brought her back for the final show. It
>would have left Kira as the only female regular, but DS9 would have gotten
>along fine with one less character.
I personally liked Ezri, but agree that she didn't modulate well into the final
season. If they had introduced her, then given her one episode to give her some
back story, then treated her as a regular character, then great, but 3 or so
episodes spent on her alone was pushing it big time.
Michael Hafer
Masked Man
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
|For its day, it was radical. Compare it to cartoons of its day, and you
|will find that you are being very insulting. ESPECIALLY the first season,
|when you had real science fiction authors writing scripts.
Masked Man---->TOS did not hit the ground running. First episodes
like Man Trap, Charlie X, and Where No Man Has Gone Before had the
purists of that day screaming sellout. Plus, TOS made artistic
compromises in the name of ratings more than once - Mudd's Women, I,
Mudd, and Spock's Brain come immediately to mind.
All of this is simply to add detail and counterpoint to your post,
Bob. Essentially, I agree. For its time, episodic television of that
era had no equivalent outside of Trek for Balance of Terror, Errand of
Mercy, City on the edge of Forever, Arena, Shore Leave, Mirror,
Mirror, and many of the others.
--
Who was that masked man?
Timo S Saloniemi
><*snippage of some good stuff*>
>
>>I blame most of DS9's unfotunate downfall on Ira Behr. He spent too much
>>time writing god-awful Ferengi shows and moving the show away from the
>>politics of Bajor and Cardassia towards more mystial crap like the whole
>>Prophet/Pagh-wraith thing, spirits possessing Dukat, etc.
>I agree with you there. Bajor should have had a bigger role in the outcome of
>the series, since that was the reason Sisco was there to begin with.
I don't know about that. Worf was originally taken into TNG as a barely
speaking background character, but his story became the most explored
in the show. One shouldn't stick too closely to the initial "premise"
if it feels too constrictive. I did enjoy the circular structure from
"Farpoint" to "All Good Things...", but TNG was never about Q, or about
the humans having to redeem themselves in front of this god, even if
"Farpoint" was.
"Emissary" gave us three premises: Bajor's politics that brought Sisko
there, Bajor's wormhole that brought everybody else there, and Bajor's
religion that bridged the two together. It also briefly flirted with
Sisko's personal problems, loss of wife and direction, but those were
basically processed during the pilot already.
It seems to me perfectly appropriate to create a circular structure
to DS9 by using the Bajoran religion aspect (Sisko as Emissary) while
leaving the two other aspects open. A wormhole-centered circular story
would not have been all that interesting: what other closure could
there have been to that story aspect other than closure of the wormhole?
A Bajoran politics ending would have been nice, I admit, but it wouldn't
have worked as the centerpiece of the show - in the final run, this
aspect was only a hobby-horse to get Sisko to Bajor so that he could
become the Emissary and find the wormhole.
And the Bajoran politics aspect was played to the end (and to the hilt)
by the time of "Explorers" and the onset of peace between Bajor and
Cardassia. The rest was no longer Bajoran politics, it was Cardassian/
Dominion politics. We got great mileage in the first and second seasons
on Bajoran politics, and then we got the Dominion and Klingon stuff.
If anything, I'd have liked to see the Dominion and Klingon aspects go
the way of the Bajoran intrigue, and be replaced by yet newer aspects
for the final two years of the show.
>>More than anything though, DS9 blew it by killing Jadzia and bringing in
>>Ezri.
That can't be held against the writers, though. It's just a fact they
had to live with - Farrell left, as actors sometimes do. The character
of Dax could have been dropped completely, though, instead of introducing
a new Dax who was less central to the major things going on and more
oriented towards romantic entertainment. Then again, I had nothing
against the introduction of this romantic entertainment at the final
stages of the show. Romance is good for a show, but prolonged romance
that has been dragging on since the first season cannot be good. A fresh
take on it just before the end didn't really hurt - no Ezri-centered
episode was a complete waste of time, unlike some Ferengi-centered or
Vic Fontaine-centered ones.
>>The last thing the show needed was to spend time developing an all-new
>>character in the final season. They either needed to pay Terry Farrell more,
>>or write her out by having Jadzia command a ship in the fleet for the war
>>effort. That way, they could have brought her back for the final show. It
>>would have left Kira as the only female regular, but DS9 would have gotten
>>along fine with one less character.
>
>I personally liked Ezri, but agree that she didn't modulate well into the
>final season. If they had introduced her, then given her one episode to
>give her some back story, then treated her as a regular character, then
>great, but 3 or so episodes spent on her alone was pushing it big time.
I in turn very much liked the way it was done. A character leaving because
the actor is leaving is so cliched and unimaginative. And Jadzia Dax would
not have left no matter what - at that point, she was involved with too many
things, including a marriage. Either do a decent death scene (I did like
the one they did). Or invent something really imaginative, like a weird
time loop or the character turning out to be an evil traitor or suddenly
going crazy - or a change of host, a possibility that was extremely
well founded so that nobody watching DS9 could have been ignorant
of the fact that it was *possible*.
If an actor drops out for the final season, then he or she drops out,
and paying him or her more is just plain stupid (does Paramount
want to have actors blackmailing it during the filming of sweeps
episodes and season cliffhangers: "More dough, or I'll go!"?).
Timo Saloniemi
Amarna
<chil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Armana, I was there, watching Episode 1, TOS, and all the other eps, TOS,
>First Run. If you were not there, you really do NOT know the impact TOS
>had on Entertainment and society.
Please, don't give me that I'm-older-than-you crap. I was there, too,
as I've already said. In fact, I was actually living in Hollywood.
But I wasn't watching television every week. I was reading books,
like the best-selling "The Feminine Mystique" (published in '66).
That's why I know how out of step with its time TOS was. Not only do
I think so now; I thought so then. As for impact of TOS on "society,"
there wasn't any. No one I knew -- and that was a lot of people --
was even aware of it. I'm sure some people were watching, but
"society" was not interested in the show until years later. That's
why it got cancelled.
>FOR ITS TIME, (and to judge a TV show
>in any other context is sophistry and elitism of the worst kind), ST:TOS
>was radical, ground breaking, leading cutting edge in social issues. I am
>now going into the one paragraph I wanted to address from your post.
>
>Amarna wrote:
>
>> TOS was almost a cartoon.
>
>For its day, it was radical. Compare it to cartoons of its day, and you
>will find that you are being very insulting. ESPECIALLY the first season,
>when you had real science fiction authors writing scripts.
Real science???? On TOS? Get a grip. I was reading real science
fiction then. It was absolutely nothing whatsoever like TOS. TOS was
fantasy. "Twilight Zone" and the original "Outer Limits" and shows
like "Panic" were far more imaginative and provocative than TOS, and
"Outer Limits" was much better -- and more adult -- science fiction.
All were superior to TOS and more in keeping with their time (as
opposed to being behind it).
>Now, if you
>want to compare it to the third season, you have a much better case.
>The characters were archetypes and totally predictable. No. ST:TOS
>created the archetypes that other shows copied. There had NEVER been a
>character like Spock before. A Ships Captain that was a Lecher, and kept
>his command?
That's a good thing? Please..... It was a retrograde message then,
and still is, now.
>NO, on any other show the character would have been there
>for ONE show before being "rightfully punished".
Actually, no. There were plenty of shows then and on into the 70s
that did the same cheap thing. Go back and watch "I Spy" sometime.
>I will grant that the
>Engineer being Scottish was trite.
a drunk
>An ASIAN officer? A BLACK WOMAN
>COMMISSIONED OFFICER?????
...in a miniskirt, playing the ship's telephone operator. In case you
don't remember, that was one of the few jobs considered okay for a
woman in the 60s. The others were nurse, teacher, and secretary.
>Name one previously on TV. Uhura, a character so
>socially important that when Nichole wanted to leave the show, Martin
>Luther King Jr. told her that she couldn't, as her image was yo important
>to the black community, black children in particular.
Well, sure, because African-American women (like white women) had
almost nothing else. Offhand, I can only think of "Julia," but that
was certainly superior to Uhura.
>
>
> The show was grossly sexist and usually pulled its punches on anything
>controversial even though there *were* other television shows facing those
>issues.
>
>Yea, sure, like the FIRST interracial kiss on National TV.
That's such a tired old canard. It wasn't as if Kirk *wanted* to kiss
her. He was forced to.
>Boy, that's
>really hiding behind anything that would be an issue. Hell, every show
>was about a current issue in some way. Actually, instead of hiding from
>controversy, the show actually became too preachy for many people. By the
>way, could you name some of these other shows that were facing the issues
>you say TOSS was avoiding?
George C. Scott starred in one about a social worker in Chicago. It
was an excellent show, and it aired right at the same time that TOS
did. You can find others on your own, if you are really looking.
Why isn't it possible for people to like TOS without completely losing
perspective about what it was? Why do you have to turn it into a
religious crusade?
>And the reason for the pulled punches was money. Nothing wrong with that,
>but let's not rewrite history into what we wish it had been at the expense
>of what it was.
>
>I am not re-writing history. I was 30 when the show started. I damn well
>remember. I also had a good friend doing VEX for the show in its last
>season.
That reminds me of something someone once said to me in an argument
about communism: "I know about communism. I flew over Poland."
>> I loved the idea of TOS, but the show itself never connected with me.
>> -- Amarna
>
>I take no exception to the last sentence, for that is a personal taste
>statement, and taste is taste, not arguable.
>Bob (AKA boothby)
What you should realize is that your impressions are also a matter of
personal taste.
-- Amarna