Yeah, I LOVED the Kes character! And Naomi... They were a nice change of pace from the regular not-quite-military Starfleet officer.
That is something I get tired of. In the sci fi genre be it Star Trek, Star Wars or Shows like BSG, all the characters have a military demeanor. Good thing there is Quark. He is the opposite.
A TIME TO SEARCH: ENTER MY FOUNDRY MISSION at the RISA SYSTEM Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
Until you have more in your "arguments" than saying other people's aging borrowed "funny" memes, and adding "much?" to one-word putdown statements, you have nothing.
That is something I get tired of. In the sci fi genre be it Star Trek, Star Wars or Shows like BSG, all the characters have a military demeanor. Good thing there is Quark. He is the opposite.
TOS didn't have that always, but to a certain extent that was what McCoy was for. He didn't act military for the most part. DS9.... had a really complicated take on it, especially in Garak episodes. But Ds9 tended to skip that vantage point.
You know what, I'm down with that. When you get Larry Niven to write one of your episodes you know you have a good series (referring to TAS.) :P
On the other hand, TOS had episodes written by Theodore Sturgeon ("Amok Time"), Harlan freaking Ellison ("City On the Edge of Forever"), and David Gerrold ("The Trouble With Tribbles" and the original version of "The Cloud Minders", before The Powers What Is removed most of his social commentary in favor of making the guys at the top of the social structure merely misinformed rather than outright racist and oppressive).
I just wish we'd gotten to see the episode Niven wrote originally, before he was forced by the network to scrap it and rewrite "The Soft Weapon" instead.
Until you have more in your "arguments" than saying other people's aging borrowed "funny" memes, and adding "much?" to one-word putdown statements, you have nothing.
Struck a nerve, did I? Because your comment was very much a straw man (a straw man is a logical fallacy where one proceeds to construct a weaker, similar position and proceeds to tear it down without actually addressing the real opposing view... it is not a "meme.")
Perhaps you should note in a lot of the varying lists of ranking order, both TNG and TOS are usually ranked rather high (with both being second and third in my own preference). Tell me, how exactly does that "toss the exploration part of Star Trek to the wind" in a so-called "obsession with war?" In fact even DS9 had its own exploration element with regular trips through the Bajoran wormhole. I ranked it on top because the writing, stories, character development and acting on DS9 were really, really good, Dominion War (which only happened in the later seasons, mind you) or no; it was also the only Star Trek with an overarching storyline which I'm quite partial to.
TNG was my second because the writing and character development were also quite good, but DS9 still had a leading edge over it in those departments (the early seasons were weak because like you, Gene made the mistake of thinking Star Trek was only about the Trek when in fact it was actually about the characters and their interactions on the ship and with alien cultures). TOS came third because despite the campiness of the 60s and Shatner's scenery chewing, the writing and acting were still very good, although the characters remained static without any character development until the movies. That last part I feel is TOS' weak point and why it's number three on my list.
Voyager and Enterprise, however? They're... not... very... good. There's a reason I put a few extra greater thans between TOS and Voyager; it's because TOS is that many scores better than Voyager. Voyager had terrible writing, inconsistent characterization, details and plots, and was just downright POOR compared to TOS, TNG, and DS9. They were lost in the Delta Quadrant, tens of thousands of light years from home, yet it never felt like it. Each episode, despite all the damage it suffered in previous episodes, was brand spanking new and clean despite being hundreds of parsecs away from the nearest starbase! The only two interesting characters were the Doctor and Seven of Nine because they were the only two characters that had any decent characterization and development (until the trainwreck of a relationship Seven had with Chakotay that just got shoehorned in out of nowhere).
Enterprise was even worse. It was bad. It was awful. It was bawful. Here they try a so-called soap opera like approach and fail miserably at it. Archer suffers from all the inconsistent characterization problems Janeway did TIMES A THOUSAND! Thus he became an incompetent, selfish, whiny manchild completely unlikable. Then they constantly hit that Voyager reset button despite that Enterprise was supposed to be more serialized. Where's this serialization (you guys realize you still have that Suliban cell ship, right)? I wasn't seeing it. It like Voyager also abandoned its premise where all of the "low tech" stuff seemed like it was only a thinly-veiled replacement for its 24th century equivalent. It didn't feel lower tech at all. None of the characters were interesting or engaging; I couldn't find one that I liked because they all seemed the same, dull and bland. A lot of the episodes felt like stale rehashes of stock Star Trek plots that were done better in earlier series. Thus it's at the very bottom, in the gutter with the trash, where it belongs.
Voyager and Enterprise, however? They're... not... very... good. There's a reason I put a few extra greater thans between TOS and Voyager; it's because TOS is that many scores better than Voyager. Voyager had terrible writing, inconsistent characterization, details and plots, and was just downright POOR compared to TOS, TNG, and DS9. They were lost in the Delta Quadrant, tens of thousands of light years from home, yet it never felt like it. Each episode, despite all the damage it suffered in previous episodes, was brand spanking new and clean despite being hundreds of parsecs away from the nearest starbase! The only two interesting characters were the Doctor and Seven of Nine because they were the only two characters that had any decent characterization and development (until the trainwreck of a relationship Seven had with Chakotay that just got shoehorned in out of nowhere).
yeah Voyager had very bad chars huge misses in plots and story so did enterprise but still they are and were a lot more fun to watch then any new sci show there wasnt any good sci show since they ended stargate sg1
Comments
That is something I get tired of. In the sci fi genre be it Star Trek, Star Wars or Shows like BSG, all the characters have a military demeanor. Good thing there is Quark. He is the opposite.
Parallels: my second mission for Fed aligned Romulans.
Until you have more in your "arguments" than saying other people's aging borrowed "funny" memes, and adding "much?" to one-word putdown statements, you have nothing.
Oh wow, the amount of yum in that question... I lost my train of thought...
Back on topic, I dig some Tuvok, especially when he is paired with Jar, err I mean Neelix
≡/\≡
My character Tsin'xing
I just wish we'd gotten to see the episode Niven wrote originally, before he was forced by the network to scrap it and rewrite "The Soft Weapon" instead.
Struck a nerve, did I? Because your comment was very much a straw man (a straw man is a logical fallacy where one proceeds to construct a weaker, similar position and proceeds to tear it down without actually addressing the real opposing view... it is not a "meme.")
Perhaps you should note in a lot of the varying lists of ranking order, both TNG and TOS are usually ranked rather high (with both being second and third in my own preference). Tell me, how exactly does that "toss the exploration part of Star Trek to the wind" in a so-called "obsession with war?" In fact even DS9 had its own exploration element with regular trips through the Bajoran wormhole. I ranked it on top because the writing, stories, character development and acting on DS9 were really, really good, Dominion War (which only happened in the later seasons, mind you) or no; it was also the only Star Trek with an overarching storyline which I'm quite partial to.
TNG was my second because the writing and character development were also quite good, but DS9 still had a leading edge over it in those departments (the early seasons were weak because like you, Gene made the mistake of thinking Star Trek was only about the Trek when in fact it was actually about the characters and their interactions on the ship and with alien cultures). TOS came third because despite the campiness of the 60s and Shatner's scenery chewing, the writing and acting were still very good, although the characters remained static without any character development until the movies. That last part I feel is TOS' weak point and why it's number three on my list.
Voyager and Enterprise, however? They're... not... very... good. There's a reason I put a few extra greater thans between TOS and Voyager; it's because TOS is that many scores better than Voyager. Voyager had terrible writing, inconsistent characterization, details and plots, and was just downright POOR compared to TOS, TNG, and DS9. They were lost in the Delta Quadrant, tens of thousands of light years from home, yet it never felt like it. Each episode, despite all the damage it suffered in previous episodes, was brand spanking new and clean despite being hundreds of parsecs away from the nearest starbase! The only two interesting characters were the Doctor and Seven of Nine because they were the only two characters that had any decent characterization and development (until the trainwreck of a relationship Seven had with Chakotay that just got shoehorned in out of nowhere).
Enterprise was even worse. It was bad. It was awful. It was bawful. Here they try a so-called soap opera like approach and fail miserably at it. Archer suffers from all the inconsistent characterization problems Janeway did TIMES A THOUSAND! Thus he became an incompetent, selfish, whiny manchild completely unlikable. Then they constantly hit that Voyager reset button despite that Enterprise was supposed to be more serialized. Where's this serialization (you guys realize you still have that Suliban cell ship, right)? I wasn't seeing it. It like Voyager also abandoned its premise where all of the "low tech" stuff seemed like it was only a thinly-veiled replacement for its 24th century equivalent. It didn't feel lower tech at all. None of the characters were interesting or engaging; I couldn't find one that I liked because they all seemed the same, dull and bland. A lot of the episodes felt like stale rehashes of stock Star Trek plots that were done better in earlier series. Thus it's at the very bottom, in the gutter with the trash, where it belongs.
yeah Voyager had very bad chars huge misses in plots and story so did enterprise but still they are and were a lot more fun to watch then any new sci show there wasnt any good sci show since they ended stargate sg1
system Lord Baal is dead