Star Trek

ENT

VOY is the worst

Quote (exodus201 @ June 10 2009, 12:33 am)

Quote (AbandonedChild @ June 03 2009, 2:34 pm) Quote (RwnPaul @ May 06 2009, 3:33 am) Quote (Kilrahi @ May 07 2009, 12:14 am) Quote (exodus201 @ May 04 2009, 2:31 pm) Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ May 02 2009, 3:13 am) [quote=exodus201,May 01 2009, 10:15 am] In other words: no facts were troubled in the formation of this opinion. That was pretty dismissive of his argument, especially since has a good point. Trek WAS made up of many people, and as a viewer I have the right to my own vision of what it means. ?That's why it's art. Gene definitely changed his vision a bit between the original series and "The Next Generation," and you know what? ?Even though I grew up on TNG and it's my second fave series of all time, I prefer how he depicted human beings in TOS. ?THAT is the more believable scenario. DS9, to me, is the only true follow up in feel to TOS, and DS9 is my fave Star Trek ever. ?Many won't give it credit for being the one true successor, but there's a pretty strong argument that it's true (at least in terms of Gene's original vision). ?DS9 portrayed a humanity that was partly high and noble only because its technology and relative superiority in its own little sector of the universe had allowed it to become "perfect." ?Then it asked what would happen if that was threatened. ?Truly awesome story telling indeed. ? You nailed it. I look at the Roddenberry shift in style from TOS to TNG as similar to Lucas and the Star Wars originals vs the prequels. TOS was good TV in space. Similarly, Star Wars was a good, gritty movie in space. TNG became sanitized, unrealistic technobabble, just like the SW prequels became sanitized and dumbed down. Why this happened I don't know. I don't mean to make a value judgment here necessarily(although the SW prequels sucked), but just to point out how the original vision changes drastically within the same mind. DS9 was the spiritual successor to TOS, even though it was packaged as story-focused, while TNG was really nothing like TOS yet had the same ship name and same episodic formula. Hmm, this discussion has exposed me to two ideas I've never entertained before: 1) Gene Roddenberry's artistic vision changed between TOS and TNG (I had always just assumed that either Roddenberry had more creative control over TNG than he did TOS, or that Picard's 24th century humanity was just the next logical progression from Kirk's 23rd). 2) DS9 is the true torch-bearer of TOS, not the illegitimate black sheep of the Trek family (if you hear something repeated enough times, you start to believe it . . . .) I remember reading interviews with TNG writers talking about how hard it was to get their stories approved by Roddenberry; if they wanted to write about grief and dying for example, he'd say "There is no grief in the 24th century; humanity has learned to accept death." Thus the writers would have to either go back to the drawing board or find a loophole in his reasoning so they could tell the story anyway. DS9, however, seemed to tackle all these human issues and emotions head-on (heck, the series pilot made Sisko's grief over Jennifer's death a major plot point). In a way, Roddenberry's naked humanism in TNG actually stripped his characters of their humanity! And perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but RwnPaul, what was "dumbed-down" about the Star Wars prequels, and does your name indicate a belief that "Freedom is popular"? ? Because Roddenberry was dead by the time DS9 hit the airwaves and Ira Bahr is even quoted as saying "I hate Trek and wanted DS9 to be as anti-Trek as I was allowed to make it." ?It's also why George Takei openly says at Cons. that "Gene wouldn't approve of DS9." Rick Berman who worked side by side with Roddenberry created Voyager to return to the Trek Gene wished for until his dying day. That is why Voy. mirrors a cross between TOS & TNG. Half of this info is one the DVD extras or TV specials interviewing the cast & producers. ?Youtube is your friend. However, you seemed to have done your homework and that's cool.

Are you sure Behr said "Trek," not "Star Trek: The Next Generation?"

I only ask because, yes, Behr admits in the Deep Space Nine Companion that he hated writing for TNG. But not because he hated Trek, but because he hated the mandate that all Federation peoples must be perfect and get along.

He said that stripped all the characters of any decent characterization. And didn't seem at all like TOS.

And personally? I agree with him wholeheartedly.

As for Takei? Man, I have issues with that guy. I LOVE the character of Sulu, but actor Takei is an insecure, antagonistic little b****.

Yeah, we get it George. You're the hero. Shatner is a big meanie. Roddenberry would hate DS9. And it's sure great knowing you're carrying the torch for him, amigo. And boy, did I mention it's fantastic you came out of the closet ... at age 70-something. You're just so darn courageous!

*shaking head*

Quote (ENT567 @ June 03 2009, 5:42 am)

Everybody with artistic taste above average knows it's DS9 that was THE dive of the franchise

Honestly?  I find it's quite the opposite.

The more artistic and intelligent Trek fans I've met believe DS9 to be one of the best Trek series.

But like you, once upon a time, I'd only watched Seasons 1 and 2.  And like you, I thought DS9 was clearly the worst.

Until I gave it another chance.

So let me wish you luck, fellow Trek fan.  And just remember, patience is not only a virtue...  For a DS9 fan, it's a prerequisite.

Quote (exodus201 @ June 09 2009, 9:21 pm)

Quote (Kilrahi @ May 07 2009, 12:14 am) Quote (exodus201 @ May 04 2009, 2:31 pm) Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ May 02 2009, 3:13 am) [quote=exodus201,May 01 2009, 10:15 am] In other words: no facts were troubled in the formation of this opinion. That was pretty dismissive of his argument, especially since has a good point. Trek WAS made up of many people, and as a viewer I have the right to my own vision of what it means. ?That's why it's art. Having an opinion does not make something art. I can dismiss his argument because it is just that, an opinion much like yours is as well. Sorry but I started my argument with business and production facts and that was debate I was looking for in return. ¿No offence.

"Having an opinion does not make something art."  Well, I guess I can't argue against that one, mainly because it doesn't really mean anything.

I took the trouble to respond with a carefully-worded argument, which you didn't bother to deal with.  Then you just announced that what I said wasn't worth dealing with.   That's a very good way to avoid having your mind changed about anything, ever.

Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ June 15 2009, 2:12 am)

Quote (exodus201 @ June 09 2009, 9:21 pm) Quote (Kilrahi @ May 07 2009, 12:14 am) Quote (exodus201 @ May 04 2009, 2:31 pm) Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ May 02 2009, 3:13 am) [quote=exodus201,May 01 2009, 10:15 am] In other words: no facts were troubled in the formation of this opinion. That was pretty dismissive of his argument, especially since has a good point. Trek WAS made up of many people, and as a viewer I have the right to my own vision of what it means. ?That's why it's art. Having an opinion does not make something art. I can dismiss his argument because it is just that, an opinion much like yours is as well. Sorry but I started my argument with business and production facts and that was debate I was looking for in return. ?No offence. "Having an opinion does not make something art." ?Well, I guess I can't argue against that one, mainly because it doesn't really mean anything. I took the trouble to respond with a carefully-worded argument, which you didn't bother to deal with. ?Then you just announced that what I said wasn't worth dealing with. ? That's a very good way to avoid having your mind changed about anything, ever.

Give me a break, it's just a TV show. ¿Your opinion doesn't overrule business fact no matter how well worded it is.
If someone doesn't wish to debate you anymore, then the debate is over.

Learn to deal with it without pouting.

Have a nice day.

Quote (TheDriver @ June 15 2009, 12:48 am)

Quote (exodus201 @ June 10 2009, 12:33 am) Quote (AbandonedChild @ June 03 2009, 2:34 pm) Quote (RwnPaul @ May 06 2009, 3:33 am) Quote (Kilrahi @ May 07 2009, 12:14 am) Quote (exodus201 @ May 04 2009, 2:31 pm) Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ May 02 2009, 3:13 am) [quote=exodus201,May 01 2009, 10:15 am] In other words: no facts were troubled in the formation of this opinion. That was pretty dismissive of his argument, especially since has a good point. Trek WAS made up of many people, and as a viewer I have the right to my own vision of what it means. ?That's why it's art. Gene definitely changed his vision a bit between the original series and "The Next Generation," and you know what? ?Even though I grew up on TNG and it's my second fave series of all time, I prefer how he depicted human beings in TOS. ?THAT is the more believable scenario. DS9, to me, is the only true follow up in feel to TOS, and DS9 is my fave Star Trek ever. ?Many won't give it credit for being the one true successor, but there's a pretty strong argument that it's true (at least in terms of Gene's original vision). ?DS9 portrayed a humanity that was partly high and noble only because its technology and relative superiority in its own little sector of the universe had allowed it to become "perfect." ?Then it asked what would happen if that was threatened. ?Truly awesome story telling indeed. ? You nailed it. I look at the Roddenberry shift in style from TOS to TNG as similar to Lucas and the Star Wars originals vs the prequels. TOS was good TV in space. Similarly, Star Wars was a good, gritty movie in space. TNG became sanitized, unrealistic technobabble, just like the SW prequels became sanitized and dumbed down. Why this happened I don't know. I don't mean to make a value judgment here necessarily(although the SW prequels sucked), but just to point out how the original vision changes drastically within the same mind. DS9 was the spiritual successor to TOS, even though it was packaged as story-focused, while TNG was really nothing like TOS yet had the same ship name and same episodic formula. Hmm, this discussion has exposed me to two ideas I've never entertained before: 1) Gene Roddenberry's artistic vision changed between TOS and TNG (I had always just assumed that either Roddenberry had more creative control over TNG than he did TOS, or that Picard's 24th century humanity was just the next logical progression from Kirk's 23rd). 2) DS9 is the true torch-bearer of TOS, not the illegitimate black sheep of the Trek family (if you hear something repeated enough times, you start to believe it . . . .) I remember reading interviews with TNG writers talking about how hard it was to get their stories approved by Roddenberry; if they wanted to write about grief and dying for example, he'd say "There is no grief in the 24th century; humanity has learned to accept death." Thus the writers would have to either go back to the drawing board or find a loophole in his reasoning so they could tell the story anyway. DS9, however, seemed to tackle all these human issues and emotions head-on (heck, the series pilot made Sisko's grief over Jennifer's death a major plot point). In a way, Roddenberry's naked humanism in TNG actually stripped his characters of their humanity! And perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but RwnPaul, what was "dumbed-down" about the Star Wars prequels, and does your name indicate a belief that "Freedom is popular"? ? Because Roddenberry was dead by the time DS9 hit the airwaves and Ira Bahr is even quoted as saying "I hate Trek and wanted DS9 to be as anti-Trek as I was allowed to make it." ?It's also why George Takei openly says at Cons. that "Gene wouldn't approve of DS9." Rick Berman who worked side by side with Roddenberry created Voyager to return to the Trek Gene wished for until his dying day. That is why Voy. mirrors a cross between TOS & TNG. Half of this info is one the DVD extras or TV specials interviewing the cast & producers. ?Youtube is your friend. However, you seemed to have done your homework and that's cool. Are you sure Behr said "Trek," not "Star Trek: The Next Generation?" I only ask because, yes, Behr admits in the Deep Space Nine Companion that he hated writing for TNG. But not because he hated Trek, but because he hated the mandate that all Federation peoples must be perfect and get along. He said that stripped all the characters of any decent characterization. And didn't seem at all like TOS. And personally? I agree with him wholeheartedly. As for Takei? Man, I have issues with that guy. I LOVE the character of Sulu, but actor Takei is an insecure, antagonistic little b****. Yeah, we get it George. You're the hero. Shatner is a big meanie. Roddenberry would hate DS9. And it's sure great knowing you're carrying the torch for him, amigo. And boy, did I mention it's fantastic you came out of the closet ... at age 70-something. You're just so darn courageous! *shaking head*

Yes forgive me, it was TNG.

Quote (exodus201 @ June 15 2009, 9:07 pm)

Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ June 15 2009, 2:12 am) Quote (exodus201 @ June 09 2009, 9:21 pm) Quote (Kilrahi @ May 07 2009, 12:14 am) Quote (exodus201 @ May 04 2009, 2:31 pm) Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ May 02 2009, 3:13 am) [quote=exodus201,May 01 2009, 10:15 am] In other words: no facts were troubled in the formation of this opinion. That was pretty dismissive of his argument, especially since has a good point. Trek WAS made up of many people, and as a viewer I have the right to my own vision of what it means. ?That's why it's art. Having an opinion does not make something art. I can dismiss his argument because it is just that, an opinion much like yours is as well. Sorry but I started my argument with business and production facts and that was debate I was looking for in return. ?No offence. "Having an opinion does not make something art." ?Well, I guess I can't argue against that one, mainly because it doesn't really mean anything. I took the trouble to respond with a carefully-worded argument, which you didn't bother to deal with. ?Then you just announced that what I said wasn't worth dealing with. ? That's a very good way to avoid having your mind changed about anything, ever. Give me a break, it's just a TV show. ?Your opinion doesn't overrule business fact no matter how well worded it is. If someone doesn't wish to debate you anymore, then the debate is over. Learn to deal with it without pouting. Have a nice day.

Good God, that's obnoxious!

Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ June 16 2009, 1:00 pm)

Quote (exodus201 @ June 15 2009, 9:07 pm) Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ June 15 2009, 2:12 am) Quote (exodus201 @ June 09 2009, 9:21 pm) Quote (Kilrahi @ May 07 2009, 12:14 am) Quote (exodus201 @ May 04 2009, 2:31 pm) Quote (MirrorRobotVicFontaine @ May 02 2009, 3:13 am) [quote=exodus201,May 01 2009, 10:15 am] In other words: no facts were troubled in the formation of this opinion. That was pretty dismissive of his argument, especially since has a good point. Trek WAS made up of many people, and as a viewer I have the right to my own vision of what it means. ?That's why it's art. Having an opinion does not make something art. I can dismiss his argument because it is just that, an opinion much like yours is as well. Sorry but I started my argument with business and production facts and that was debate I was looking for in return. ?No offence. "Having an opinion does not make something art." ?Well, I guess I can't argue against that one, mainly because it doesn't really mean anything. I took the trouble to respond with a carefully-worded argument, which you didn't bother to deal with. ?Then you just announced that what I said wasn't worth dealing with. ? That's a very good way to avoid having your mind changed about anything, ever. Give me a break, it's just a TV show. ?Your opinion doesn't overrule business fact no matter how well worded it is. If someone doesn't wish to debate you anymore, then the debate is over. Learn to deal with it without pouting. Have a nice day. Good God, that's obnoxious!

I guess you're not used to being told "No".

I'm so sorry but my personal opinion is that Voyager was horrible  Infact it was so horrible, I became a member of this forum just in order to write that.

Enterprise was better with the T'Pol - Trip relationship and the captain was definitely mmore tolerable than Janeway.

I liked Voyager much better, acept for the fact that they were forced so far away, that was a horrible scenario. And that happened once or twice in TNG and TOS, all of it in one episode. They chould've made it back with Q's help or something. Other than that, I liked it better. I hated Enterprise, even though it was on the Enterprise.

Given the choices, I say Voyager is worse. There is not one character on Voyager that I CARE about.  You know, it is not a case of Voyager being worse, it's just not as GOOD as Enterprise.

*sigh*

I liked Voyager. More than DS9. Now It's the other way around.

Born in 1988, I'm 21 now, and watching DS9 all the way through, not missing a single ep. It's brilliant, and I can appreciate it's faults and it's strengths.
I Liked Season 1 and 2. Good episodes I watched several times before moving onto the next:
1x01,1x02 - Emmisary; 1x03 - Past Prologue.; 1x04 - A Man Alone; 1x07 - Q-Less ("Picard never hit me!" - "I'm Not Picard."); 1x09 - The Passenger
1x12 - Vortex; 1x13 - Battle Lines;1x15 - Progress; 1x16 - If Wishes were Horses; 1x17 - The Forsaken; 1x19 - Duet.

Thats, 12 Episodes out of 20 I thought were good. just under 2/3rds.
And I've watched and liked the RDM Battlestar Gallactica, Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles, Eureka, Heroes, Firefly, Buffy and a few others... The first of that list being the most Character-driven of them all.
And I like These episodes of Season 1 DS9.
Of season 2: 2x01, 2x02-2x03, 2x04, 2x05, 2x08, 2x09, 2x12, 2x13, 2x14, 2x15 ("We have become Fat and Lazy and Dull." - sounds like a fine analysis of TNG to me. Heh. Methinks Ira had the writers add that line to this episode.), 2x19, 2x20, 2x21, 2x22, 2x23, 2x25, 2x26.
18 of 26.

just about 2/3rds.


And I think Ira's right. TNG was... I dunno. It was Good, don't get me wrong, but it was too, "Humans (aka STARFLEET) are perfect" blablabla.

'We don't grieve no more, we understand death' blablabla - Gene would have Picard say that, right?

Well if Picard said that to Sisko, our Ben would have been Court-martialled for punching a (not-at-all-) superior Officer.
Yeah Picard, After a week you can go about your business as if the deaths of the crew of those ships at Wolf 359 don't affect you. Etc.
IIt was only by FC that it showed itself as actually affecting him in a bad way... which given dialogue from DS9 apparently took place during Season 5 of the show...

I must confess I've often had a problem with the whole Evolved Humanity Everyone Gets Along notion. Even though I like Picard as a character and Data and others and quite like TNG.

There are multiple reasons for this problem.

1. From a storytelling point of view, Not having conflict makes for a very boring story. Luckily the writers of Star Trek did not go all the way with this. Still, to tone down the internal conflict means that it must come from an external source -- which brings up a whole new set of issues.
"We all get along -- but THEY don't..." That kind of thing.

2. As evidenced in episodes like "Hard Time" and movies like "First Contact" -- Being evolved, or having to think of your race as evolved brings enormous pressure to be so enlightened or right all the time. So that of course when people are unable to live up to those expectations, as people so often are, then the burden is increased many times.

3. It's really quite an arrogant presumption to consider one's own species or race to be more enlightened than others. Really. Of course everyone knows what kind of crap that this can lead to.

So, while it is an understandable (theoretical) sentiment and all, I still don't subscribe to the idea of some kind of ideal, enlightened humanity in any century.

Quote (Nylian @ June 20 2009, 8:59 pm)

I'm so sorry but my personal opinion is that Voyager was horrible ¿Infact it was so horrible, I became a member of this forum just in order to write that. Enterprise was better with the T'Pol - Trip relationship and the captain was definitely mmore tolerable than Janeway.

I agree.   Voyager was soooooo bad that I didn't give ENT a chance.