STARTREK: VOYAGER; Where is the Love? - Page 2

Jason Seaver · 06-28-2002, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Kes and the Ocampa were one of the more creative alien species Trek ever came up with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And/or one of the silliest, all depending on one's point of view.

Probably both. The basic idea is sound - Ocampa only live about eight years, so they'll have a different perspective on situations than us guys who live up to a century. It's an interesting idea, unfortunately in the hands of people who wouldn't know what to do with one.

So we see Kes get psi abilities, or be buddies with the doctor when no-one else is; stuff that can happen to any character. Berman/Piller/Taylor/Braga never explored any non-cliched ideas with her; like just about everything else of interest introduced in "Caretaker", it was shoved off to the side in order to shoot scripts that probably have been sitting around since they first started working on TNG.

John Berggren · 06-28-2002, 07:24 AM

If I'm not mistaken, his name was Joe. It was incredibly simple and average. He only took the name in the version of the future that future-Janeway eradicated.

He may have had a last name. I don't remember. If he had one it was Smith, Jones, Brown, or some other exciting name.

Mike Broadman · 06-28-2002, 10:38 AM

Vic Fontaine- awful. A singing hologram?! WTF?

I actually liked the Voyager episode where Kes thought she was in heat and wanted a baby. It was the one episode I liked Neelix, and I thought it made good use of Kes' uniqueness.

Jack Briggs · 06-28-2002, 12:23 PM

Quote:

The Holodeck adventures in every iteration of Trek are, to my mind, the writers and producers' cop-out to dealing with the sf surroundings the various crews have found themselves in. Either they're playing 20th-century earthbound spy games ("Our Man Bashir"), "visiting" cheesy Vegas casinos with equally cheesy lounge-lizard singers "burdened" by ersatz-problems, reliving Sherlock Holmes or "Dixon Hill" detective stories, or, as here, indulging in Anglo-American literary pretenses or in "retro-pop-cultural" imaginings of the American middle class. I consider them all to be boring evasions to good weird (as in UNfamiliar!!!) plots, stories, and surroundings.

I completely agree, Rex. Completely. And it's all due to an imagination deficit. If the Trek mavens would simply ask a group of eight or nine established SF authors to join them on a weeklong retreat to discuss ways of re-engergizing (pun intended) the franchise, we could return to the all-too-alien concept of science fiction.

However, I must confess to a strong fondness for the Holodek-based TNG episodes "Elementary Dear Data" and "Ship in a Bottle."

Andrew Beacom · 06-28-2002, 12:32 PM

I actually thought the show started off in promising fashion but went downhill once continuity was cast aside. Seska was a good concept and the Marquis had tonnes of potential that was never used. You just don't take waring factions and have them working together in 1 episode and a perfect crew in 2.

The main problem was the writing. It made the show eminently forgetable. Nearly every episode came and went with me never being interested like I had been with TOS or TNG.

The finale was a good example of the shows problems. A terrible idea played out by actors who didn't care. And more importantly characters that didn't care. Not even a "We got home, Yay" after how many years away? I'm still bitter that they finished that way. What a disgrace.

I liked Janeway initially but there was something about her that I didn't like. Jason was right when he said she was a science officer that got over promoted. She never convinced me that she knew what a captain was.

I liked Chakotay when he wasn't giving speeches. All too soon he became Janeways trusty pet. If he had been captain things could have been alot better.

7 of 9 and the Dr were 2 of my favourite characters but they were overused and some of the more interesting aspects of their isolation/immaturity was never fleshed out.

I liked Tuvok. He reminded me of Spock.

Torres the half Klingon was interesting, Torres the Paris doting doltard was not. Paris was house trained much too easily. Kim had growth potential but in Wesley Crusher style it never happened.

Kes was the most annoying character ever. Neelix started out interesting and the got handcuffed as the comic relief.

The 3 things abused the most were technology in general, the holodeck crap and time travel. Janeway should have been in irons for what Voyager did to the timeline. Most of my gripes stem from B&B being in control. In 1 season they seem to be making Enterprise Voyager part 2.

Rex Bachmann · 06-28-2002, 01:44 PM

Jason Seaver wrote:

Quote:

The basic idea is sound - Ocampa only live about eight years, so they'll have a different perspective on situations than us guys who live up to a century. It's an interesting idea . . . .

Well, it certainly would be "interesting", I guess, to see how they could have been made believable. I have serious doubts as to how a race with such individual short lifespans could achieve their level of technological advancement. One of the hallmarks of human development---even contrasting humans with apes---is the length of time for the development of the young from conception through infancy and childhood. By (earthbound) animal standards, it takes a loooong time, and if the Ocampa are supposed to be evolutionarily equivalent to the Federationists, it would take some mighty good (and convincing) explaining to win me over.

Now, how long does it take good scientific research---much less advanced scientific research---to bear fruit? I just don't see them (by their nature, as described) and their "civilization" being scientifically compatible.

Rex Bachmann · 06-28-2002, 02:31 PM

Mike Broadman wrote:

Quote:

1. Janeway

It is my impression that people are way harder on her than on other captains. I think it is because she is a woman. I'm usually the last person to cry "oppression," but this is the feeling I get. I've heard completely contradicting criticisms, such as, "She's too womanly," and "she's not feminine enough." "She's too head strong / stubborn," "she's too cautious." Folks, if you're going to bitch, at least have some consistency.

You know, this sort of thing has been discussed in the literature. And with respect to Voyager, Mr. Broadman's idea is the closest anyone in this thread has come to mentioning it.

In Daniel Bernardi's UCLA (or USC?) dissertation (mid '90s, which I have a copy of somewhere in storage and which is now published as a book entitled Star Trek and History: Race-ing toward a White Future) (1998)), the author---if I remember correctly---speculates on the hostitlity aimed at Voyager due to the composition of its senior crew.
With the exception of Tom Paris, there is, effectively, no white male lead (we won't include the Talaxian), no standard traditional focal point for the identification of audiences who've come to expect a James Kirk or a Jean-Luc Picard (or a Henry Fonda or James Stewart, for that matter). (They might accept a Benjamin Sisko, but they didn't expect him.)

What we have, instead, are three strong females (or two-and-half with Kes), a young Asian male, a black Vulcan, a rebellious Amerindian, a clownish-looking (and -acting) Talaxian, and a hologram (hardly leadership material). Tom Paris himself is a rogue who's been specially recruited for his piloting skills (if I remember correctly). It's rather clear he probably won't be rising to head anything. (And, in fact, during the course of the series, he's reduced in rank for violating orders or Star Fleet procedures. I can't remember the specific episode.)

The book (or the dissertation it's based on, at least) presents a number of contemporary Internet exchanges of the by now standard so-called "angry-white-male" (AWM) type, complaining about the "political correctness" of the Voyager crew make-up.

Of course, by now there's probably enough evidence and consensus on how poor a show overall Voyager was that any hint of a racial or gender bias in the discontent with the program will be dismissed off-hand. Nevertheless, I throw it out there because of its possible, even if miniscule, role in the sort of visceral dislike that this show engenders in so many.

Colin Jacobson · 02-20-2004, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Who DOESN'T like Vic Fontaine?

Me! I hated that friggin' character - he was jump the shark material. Nothing more than a cheesy gimmick.

And I've only watched one season of Voyager, but I must admit I like Janeway so far. If nothing else, I think she's the best-ACTED captain of the lot. Shatner... 'nuff said. Stewart and Brooks both invested too much pseudo-Shakespearean drama into their parts - they usually came across as not very realistic. Despite the fact she cultivates a Kate Hepburn impression much of the time, Mulgrew - during the first season, at least - makes Janeway seem natural and believable...

Colin Jacobson · 02-20-2004, 07:50 PM

Quote:

The Holodeck adventures in every iteration of Trek are, to my mind, the writers and producers' cop-out to dealing with the sf surroundings the various crews have found themselves in.

With a few exceptions, I friggin' HATE holodeck episodes. They're indeed a cop-out and a cheap vehicle to expand the series' settings without expanding the series' settings.

And BTW, one thing I couldn't understand as I watched S1 of Voyager: if they're so desperate to save energy all the time, shouldn't they cut back on the holodeck time? Does that experience somehow not use energy?