posted
It's nice that everyone can say "This is bad," but can you come up with a way to "fix" it? If not, just complain about it once and pass it by. I mean, if you can't "fix" the Maquis/Starfleet thing now, if you had to, then there's no reason for you to still use that as an excuse as for why Voyager -- as is now -- isn't a good show, IMO.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's not an excuse, it's a reason. It would have been nice if the Maquis retained their previous uniforms and always contested the decisions made by Janeway etc. It would have made for a more interesting show.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "I can't remember stuff." - John Linnell
posted
Fine, it's a reason to begin with, but after five years and no one knowing what to do to "fix" it, it borders very close to being an excuse, IMO.
There is a point at which you need to accept some things as they are...
[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited January 24, 2000).]
posted
Yes, like you did to "Drone" because of the implausibility; and then you missed a highly praised episode.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Individual 5748
Ex-Member
posted
But you apparently don't do that. Why not follow your own advice before you give it?
Edit: Well, apparently you do turn it off. I missed Garak's post. My mistake. But if you don't like, maybe you should turn it off a little more often. For instance, you obviously didn't like "Fair Haven," but I got the impression you watched the whole thing. I'm curious about that.
------------------ "Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."
[This message has been edited by Individual 5748 (edited January 24, 2000).]
posted
But sometimes, drama must give into believabilty. Even with it being science fiction, there has to be some sort of realism involved or the story crashes (like Voyager usually does).
As for fixes for Voyager, if you give me about a week, I can list some changes that maybe able to fix it. I say a week because my computer is going in for an upgrade either tomorrow or Wednesday and my friend dubbed off the 1st Season of Earth: Final Conflict (the only good Roddenberry series on TV) for me so I'm going to be engrossed in that.
------------------ Daniel Henderson Senior Babylon 5/Crusade Editor http://www.myrkr.com
posted
But even from the very first shots of the first TOS episode, science was at least partially thrown out the window. In real life, there is no way to hear a starship in space. In real life, we would not see a phaser blast. There will never be a transporter because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, Star Trek, and practically all other science fiction, continues to break these basic laws of nature or physics or whatever simply because it adds to the drama present on the screen. So if they're going to break even the most fundamental laws of science to add to drama, why should we hope that they wouldn't do the same for the more complex laws?
------------------ "Questions, comments, bring them to me. Problems, take them to Kinis."
posted
The audience can tolerate only a certain amount of anti-science, though. Besides, hearing ships in space isn't a major plot point.
------------------ Frank's Home Page John Linnell: "This song is called...it's called..." Audience: "Louisiana! Montana!" John Linnell: Don't tell me what it's called..."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
