Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC thought, the
deification of native americans, shoved down our throats, and loads and
loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton. This episode was one long
string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the epitome of cringe-worthiness!
Congrats to this episode!

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:15:29 -0800, a wrote:

> Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC thought, the
> deification of native americans, shoved down our throats, and loads and
> loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton. This episode was one long
> string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the epitome of cringe-worthiness!
> Congrats to this episode!

I think The Outcast is even worse.

--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.

Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:15:29 -0800, a wrote:
>
>> Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC
>> thought, the deification of native americans, shoved down our
>> throats, and loads and loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton.
>> This episode was one long string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the
>> epitome of cringe-worthiness! Congrats to this episode!
>
> I think The Outcast is even worse.

"The Outrageous Okona", anyone?


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

"Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
message news:1brw28r0xo852.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:15:29 -0800, a wrote:
>
>> Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC thought,
>> the
>> deification of native americans, shoved down our throats, and loads and
>> loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton. This episode was one long
>> string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the epitome of cringe-worthiness!
>> Congrats to this episode!
>
> I think The Outcast is even worse.

Yeah. 'The Outcast' would get my vote (The Planet of Lesbiens). I could not
even believe what I was watching.
And I thought that 'The Hunted' (The Planet of Veitnam Veterans) had some
cringe moments too.

I don't know. Those two episodes were Wesley gets seperated from his mum
then we get the happy reunion at the end(Justice and When the Bough Breaks)
makes me want to reach for an airsick bag every time.

And the reason Roddenberry wrote Wesley into the series was for children to
have an interest in the show. I guess spaceships warping around the galaxy,
battling Klingons and Romulans, meeting dozens of new alien species just
could not hold a childs attention.

Robo-man wrote:
> "Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
> message news:1brw28r0xo852.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:15:29 -0800, a wrote:
>>
>>> Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC
>>> thought, the
>>> deification of native americans, shoved down our throats, and loads
>>> and loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton. This episode was
>>> one long string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the epitome of
>>> cringe-worthiness! Congrats to this episode!
>>
>> I think The Outcast is even worse.
>
> Yeah. 'The Outcast' would get my vote (The Planet of Lesbiens). I
> could not even believe what I was watching.
> And I thought that 'The Hunted' (The Planet of Veitnam Veterans) had
> some cringe moments too.
>
> I don't know. Those two episodes were Wesley gets seperated from his
> mum then we get the happy reunion at the end(Justice and When the
> Bough Breaks) makes me want to reach for an airsick bag every time.
>
> And the reason Roddenberry wrote Wesley into the series was for
> children to have an interest in the show. I guess spaceships warping
> around the galaxy, battling Klingons and Romulans, meeting dozens of
> new alien species just could not hold a childs attention.

There seems to be this widespread belief among creators of shows (and
movies, and literature and so on) that anyone who is part of an identified
group is only interested in that identified group, and so to appeal to that
group the show (etc) must be about, or contain that group. A child must be
included to appeal to children, a black person to appeal to black people, a,
uh, woman to appeal to women, a dog to appeal to um dogs, and so on. They
don't seem to think it's possible that children may enjoy shows about
adults, or men may enjoy watching er women. Makes no sense to me.

When I was a youngster, I enjoyed Trek without there being kids in it, and I
enjoyed books without kids in them; indeed like I think like many people I
found books about kids rather patronising and dull. One problem with having
kids in a book is that childrens' horizons are rather limited. Adults do
interesting things like being starship captains, children don't; they go to
school and play and stuff, that's it. So a story about children either has
to be pathetically trivial, or else the children have to do unlikely
impressive adult style things, in which case they just remind you how
mundane your own life is. What kid can identify with Wesley Crusher, boy
genius and starship pilot and *next stage of human evolution*?


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

>>
>> And the reason Roddenberry wrote Wesley into the series was for
>> children to have an interest in the show. I guess spaceships warping
>> around the galaxy, battling Klingons and Romulans, meeting dozens of
>> new alien species just could not hold a childs attention.
>
> There seems to be this widespread belief among creators of shows (and
> movies, and literature and so on) that anyone who is part of an identified
> group is only interested in that identified group, and so to appeal to
> that
> group the show (etc) must be about, or contain that group. A child must be
> included to appeal to children, a black person to appeal to black people,
> a,
> uh, woman to appeal to women, a dog to appeal to um dogs, and so on. They
> don't seem to think it's possible that children may enjoy shows about
> adults, or men may enjoy watching er women. Makes no sense to me.
>
> When I was a youngster, I enjoyed Trek without there being kids in it, and
> I
> enjoyed books without kids in them; indeed like I think like many people I
> found books about kids rather patronising and dull. One problem with
> having
> kids in a book is that childrens' horizons are rather limited. Adults do
> interesting things like being starship captains, children don't; they go
> to
> school and play and stuff, that's it. So a story about children either has
> to be pathetically trivial, or else the children have to do unlikely
> impressive adult style things, in which case they just remind you how
> mundane your own life is. What kid can identify with Wesley Crusher, boy
> genius and starship pilot and *next stage of human evolution*?
>
>
> Ian

Yes.
I remember when I was a wee little kid back in 1977. I absolutely fell in
love with 'Star Wars' and I did not need any children in that movie to adore
it.
Kids just want to emulate grown ups like Cowboys, Soldiers, Astronauts ect.
ect.

I also remember the reason for Boxey being in Battlestar Galactica was so
children would want to watch it. Go figure.

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47c1e4a1$0$2445$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

> There seems to be this widespread belief among creators of shows (and
> movies, and literature and so on) that anyone who is part of an identified
> group is only interested in that identified group, and so to appeal to
> that
> group the show (etc) must be about, or contain that group.

On a related note, Chekov in TOS was cast to look as much like a member of
the Beatles or the Monkeys as possible, to cash in on that social trend.

Jaxtraw wrote:

> There seems to be this widespread belief among creators of shows (and
> movies, and literature and so on) that anyone who is part of an identified
> group is only interested in that identified group, and so to appeal to that
> group the show (etc) must be about, or contain that group. A child must be
> included to appeal to children, a black person to appeal to black people, a,
> uh, woman to appeal to women, a dog to appeal to um dogs, and so on. They
> don't seem to think it's possible that children may enjoy shows about
> adults, or men may enjoy watching er women. Makes no sense to me.

Well, there is something to be said for it, given the Nielsen ratings data.

Shows with predominantly black casts (like "Moesha") had almost entirely
black viewership. It was a Top 20 hit among black viewers, and near the
bottom of the ratings among white viewers.

"Kid Nation" won its time slot among young viewers but among no one
else. You couldn't get childless adults to watch that show. Believe
me, I tried. :-)

And ABC's current lineup of "chick" shows really do attract more female
viewers than male viewers. Most male viewers don't watch "Men in Trees"
or "Samantha Who?"


> One problem with having
> kids in a book is that childrens' horizons are rather limited. Adults do
> interesting things like being starship captains, children don't; they go to
> school and play and stuff, that's it.

That's probably why kids watched Kid Nation. It's one of the few times
they could see kids doing adult things on a prime-time show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbewgsMCZag


--
Steven L.
Email: sdlitvin@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

"Robo-man" <duffy12@cox.net> wrote in message
news:I3lwj.4052$QC.1604@newsfe20.lga...
>
> "Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
> message news:1brw28r0xo852.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:15:29 -0800, a wrote:
>>
>>> Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC thought,
>>> the
>>> deification of native americans, shoved down our throats, and loads and
>>> loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton. This episode was one long
>>> string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the epitome of cringe-worthiness!
>>> Congrats to this episode!
>>
>> I think The Outcast is even worse.
>
> Yeah. 'The Outcast' would get my vote (The Planet of Lesbiens). I could
> not even believe what I was watching.
> And I thought that 'The Hunted' (The Planet of Veitnam Veterans) had some
> cringe moments too.

I wish they would have had the backbone to attack the same-sex issue head
on, instead of the almost completely unidentifiable play on cultural taboos
that one turned into :rolleyes: If you say to your fans that you are going
to do a episode that addresses homosexuality (I was there at the con that
Berman answered this famous question), then go and address it - to hell with
viewer comfort.

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47c1bd5b$0$2437$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> "The Outrageous Okona", anyone?

At least Okona himself was a funny character - the actor didn't do a bad job
with the material, consider.

How about "The Royale"? Did that episode serve any purpose whatsoever?

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:47c21f06$0$8089$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47c1bd5b$0$2437$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>> "The Outrageous Okona", anyone?
>
> At least Okona himself was a funny character - the actor didn't do a bad
> job with the material, consider.
>
> How about "The Royale"? Did that episode serve any purpose whatsoever?

LOL

Just think if the 'book' had been somthing else.

- The Shining
- Frankenstien
- Dracula
- Alive
- The Exorcist
- Salems lot
- Misery
- The silence of the lambs
- Deliverance
- a HP Lovecraft novel

Yikes!

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:47c21f06$0$8089$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47c1bd5b$0$2437$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>> "The Outrageous Okona", anyone?
>
> At least Okona himself was a funny character - the actor didn't do a bad
> job with the material, consider.

The guy who played Okona was apparently in the running for playing Riker.

I think he would have been a better choice. Frakes never seemed authentic,
and was often creepy.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:44:58 -0500, Snake wrote:

> I wish they would have had the backbone to attack the same-sex issue head
> on, instead of the almost completely unidentifiable play on cultural taboos

Unidentifiable? Did we watch the same episode? It was one of the
most didactic pieces of liberal trash ever filmed for broadcast
television. What did you want, a view of the androgynous genitals in
a sex scene with Riker, complete with Texas police busting in and case
all the way to the Supreme Court?

--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.

"Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
message news:1aa6ega2wmm9c$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:44:58 -0500, Snake wrote:
>
>> I wish they would have had the backbone to attack the same-sex issue head
>> on, instead of the almost completely unidentifiable play on cultural
>> taboos
>
> Unidentifiable? Did we watch the same episode? It was one of the
> most didactic pieces of liberal trash ever filmed for broadcast
> television. What did you want, a view of the androgynous genitals in
> a sex scene with Riker, complete with Texas police busting in and case
> all the way to the Supreme Court?


Funny. Capt Picard ***LET*** Riker go back to the planet with the purpose
of 'Breaking the Prime Directive'.

But berated the **** out of Worf for 'paying back' his wifes murderer!!!!

What kind of F***ed up writing is that??????????

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:44:58 -0500, "Snake"
<fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:

>> And I thought that 'The Hunted' (The Planet of Veitnam Veterans) had some
>> cringe moments too.

The quote above is from someone Snake quoted.

I love "The Hunted" It is one of the best episodes of TNG, one of the the
very best neglected episodes, and has not a single cringe-worthy moment.
Jeff McCarthy is terrific as Roga Danar, and Danar as the super soldier who
could out think and out maneuver the best and brightest of Starfleet was
completely convincing. One man's poison, and all that, but however much
anyone dislikes this episode, you can be sure that I like it more ..

On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:35:34 -0500, Robo-man wrote:

> "Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
> message news:1aa6ega2wmm9c$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:44:58 -0500, Snake wrote:
>>
>>> I wish they would have had the backbone to attack the same-sex issue head
>>> on, instead of the almost completely unidentifiable play on cultural
>>> taboos
>>
>> Unidentifiable? Did we watch the same episode? It was one of the
>> most didactic pieces of liberal trash ever filmed for broadcast
>> television. What did you want, a view of the androgynous genitals in
>> a sex scene with Riker, complete with Texas police busting in and case
>> all the way to the Supreme Court?
>
> Funny. Capt Picard ***LET*** Riker go back to the planet with the purpose
> of 'Breaking the Prime Directive'.
>
> But berated the **** out of Worf for 'paying back' his wifes murderer!!!!
>
> What kind of F***ed up writing is that??????????

It's agenda-driven writing. I like TNG, but when they got into this
social commentary stuff, it was so heavy handed and absurd that it's
impossible not to laugh at the writers. It's as if they're writing
only for people who already agree with them. Subtle isn't even in
their dictionary.

--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.

"Robo-man" <duffy12@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hArwj.4144$QC.2060@newsfe20.lga...
>
> "Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
> message news:1aa6ega2wmm9c$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:44:58 -0500, Snake wrote:
>>
>>> I wish they would have had the backbone to attack the same-sex issue
>>> head
>>> on, instead of the almost completely unidentifiable play on cultural
>>> taboos
>>
>> Unidentifiable? Did we watch the same episode? It was one of the
>> most didactic pieces of liberal trash ever filmed for broadcast
>> television. What did you want, a view of the androgynous genitals in
>> a sex scene with Riker, complete with Texas police busting in and case
>> all the way to the Supreme Court?
>
>
> Funny. Capt Picard ***LET*** Riker go back to the planet with the purpose
> of 'Breaking the Prime Directive'.

I don't think the prime directive comes into play when dealing with
warp-capable species who know about the federation (which I believe the
unisex species were and did). I think it's just an issue of breaking their
laws, which is a lesser offense. Maybe I'm misremembering.

"George Peatty" <peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in message
news:qqg5s3p5sfcn732vrrr2agrb0i3lnkuqrt@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:44:58 -0500, "Snake"
> <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>> And I thought that 'The Hunted' (The Planet of Veitnam Veterans) had
>>> some
>>> cringe moments too.
>
> The quote above is from someone Snake quoted.
>
> I love "The Hunted" It is one of the best episodes of TNG, one of the the
> very best neglected episodes, and has not a single cringe-worthy moment.
> Jeff McCarthy is terrific as Roga Danar, and Danar as the super soldier
> who
> could out think and out maneuver the best and brightest of Starfleet was
> completely convincing. One man's poison, and all that, but however much
> anyone dislikes this episode, you can be sure that I like it more ..

That was from me.

Though I think it has a couple of cringe-worthy lines in it. I still do
injoy watching the episode. It has one of my favorite lines in it. Before it
goes into opening credits after Data informs Capt. Picard that the fugitve
has eluded them.
Picard responds with a puzzled disbeleaving look on his face. "Eluded the
Enterprise?"
I love the way he delivers that line. It always cracks me up.

<a> wrote in message news:FYWdnStNqLPpdl_anZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Robo-man" <duffy12@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:hArwj.4144$QC.2060@newsfe20.lga...
>>
>> "Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
>> message news:1aa6ega2wmm9c$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:44:58 -0500, Snake wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish they would have had the backbone to attack the same-sex issue
>>>> head
>>>> on, instead of the almost completely unidentifiable play on cultural
>>>> taboos
>>>
>>> Unidentifiable? Did we watch the same episode? It was one of the
>>> most didactic pieces of liberal trash ever filmed for broadcast
>>> television. What did you want, a view of the androgynous genitals in
>>> a sex scene with Riker, complete with Texas police busting in and case
>>> all the way to the Supreme Court?
>>
>>
>> Funny. Capt Picard ***LET*** Riker go back to the planet with the
>> purpose of 'Breaking the Prime Directive'.
>
> I don't think the prime directive comes into play when dealing with
> warp-capable species who know about the federation (which I believe the
> unisex species were and did). I think it's just an issue of breaking
> their laws, which is a lesser offense. Maybe I'm misremembering.
>

Your probably right. I just feel that the 'double standard' was poorly
written. If I was Worf I would be having a very animated discussion with the
dear Capt. in his 'ready room' after that crap.

"Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
message news:1aa6ega2wmm9c$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
> Unidentifiable? Did we watch the same episode? It was one of the
> most didactic pieces of liberal trash ever filmed for broadcast
> television. What did you want, a view of the androgynous genitals in
> a sex scene with Riker, complete with Texas police busting in and case
> all the way to the Supreme Court?

Because what is "liberal trash" to you is other people's LIVES. If you feel
that people who do not act / believe as you do have a "trash" issue - so be
it.

They should have *directly* attacked the same-sex issue, rather than attempt
to hide it by turning it on it's face of making the principle character
(Riker) the one who had to deal with the sexuality while he was
heterosexual.

If you are going to attack an issue and make it a focal point of a story
have the backbone to attack it head on and not pander, watering the impact
down. Make it in your face, directly, not through an inverse metaphor that
some people (with respect, like yourself) completely miss. If you would
have gotten the moral of the story then (again, with respect) you would see
that, to these people, the issue is far from "trash".

Snake wrote:
> "Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
> message news:1aa6ega2wmm9c$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
>> Unidentifiable? Did we watch the same episode? It was one of the
>> most didactic pieces of liberal trash ever filmed for broadcast
>> television. What did you want, a view of the androgynous genitals in
>> a sex scene with Riker, complete with Texas police busting in and
>> case all the way to the Supreme Court?
>
> Because what is "liberal trash" to you is other people's LIVES. If
> you feel that people who do not act / believe as you do have a
> "trash" issue - so be it.
>
> They should have *directly* attacked the same-sex issue, rather than
> attempt to hide it by turning it on it's face of making the principle
> character (Riker) the one who had to deal with the sexuality while he
> was heterosexual.
>
> If you are going to attack an issue and make it a focal point of a
> story have the backbone to attack it head on and not pander, watering
> the impact down. Make it in your face, directly, not through an
> inverse metaphor that some people (with respect, like yourself)
> completely miss. If you would have gotten the moral of the story
> then (again, with respect) you would see that, to these people, the
> issue is far from "trash".

For me I'd say generally that stories about ishoos rarely work. It's not
because an ishoo story can't work, it's just that I think the writers are
usually approaching it from the wrong end. I have this firm conviction that
the basic reason for telling a story must be the writer's conviction that
they have a danged good story to tell. An idea for a plot, and characters,
and events, that makes the writer think "dang, this is a great story, I just
have to get this thang down on paper!" kind of thing. For me storytelling is
about, well, stories, and stories are about events and characters. If you
can make a point or two during the story, well all well and good, that's a
real bonus that might push you up from "great story" to "classic story". But
the first thing has to be the story.

I think a writer who is writing an ishoo story often approaches that from
the wrong end. They start off with this thing they want to say, whatever it
is, then sit there chewing their pencil trying to think up a story that
makes their point. The result is usually something contrived, or preachy,
or, well, just not a very good story really. Its just doing things the wrong
way around. In attempting to make something deliberately to "speak to the
audience" they usually end up with something that doesn't speak to anybody
very much; starchy and po-faced and lacking spark.

None of the great TOS episodes are ishoo stories, but they work by making
points and saying things about people along the way. City On The Edge
doesn't have a moral (maybe sort of the needs of the many or something, but
nothing direct). Balance Of Terror doesn't either, but for me the reluctant
Romulan Captain, questioning the very raison d'etre of his empire and duty
*in our very first encounter with this civilisation* is a pure masterstroke
of writing (mind you it helps that they had Mark Lenard on hand to play it
so well :). It makes some points about racial prejudice, but the story isn't
*about* the racial prejudice ishoo. And so on. When we look at the stories
constructed around an ishoo, like Let That Be Your Last Battlefield or the
risible Omega Glory; they just fall flat.

Shakespeare is full of commentary on the human condition, but his plays are
great because his primary objective was to write something that would please
a rowdy audience at The Globe on a tuesday evening. That, in the end, is
what matters.


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

On 24 feb, 22:41, "Jaxtraw" <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
> What kid can identify with Wesley Crusher, boy
> genius and starship pilot and *next stage of human evolution*?

Wasn't that being a slimey reptile-like creature shagging in some
swamp?

--
Gio

Gio wrote:
> On 24 feb, 22:41, "Jaxtraw" <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>> What kid can identify with Wesley Crusher, boy
>> genius and starship pilot and *next stage of human evolution*?
>
> Wasn't that being a slimey reptile-like creature shagging in some
> swamp?

Ah no, that was the *ultimate* fate of human evolution. First we all become
like Wesley, then we become slimey reptile-like creatures shagging in some
swamp.

By the by, isn't that the only official episode to be officially erased from
canon? :)


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47c4031f$0$2439$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> Snake wrote:
> > "Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
> > message news:1aa6ega2wmm9c$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni...
> >> Unidentifiable? Did we watch the same episode? It was one of the
> >> most didactic pieces of liberal trash ever filmed for broadcast
> >> television. What did you want, a view of the androgynous genitals in
> >> a sex scene with Riker, complete with Texas police busting in and
> >> case all the way to the Supreme Court?
> >
> > Because what is "liberal trash" to you is other people's LIVES. If
> > you feel that people who do not act / believe as you do have a
> > "trash" issue - so be it.
> >
> > They should have *directly* attacked the same-sex issue, rather than
> > attempt to hide it by turning it on it's face of making the principle
> > character (Riker) the one who had to deal with the sexuality while he
> > was heterosexual.
> >
> > If you are going to attack an issue and make it a focal point of a
> > story have the backbone to attack it head on and not pander, watering
> > the impact down. Make it in your face, directly, not through an
> > inverse metaphor that some people (with respect, like yourself)
> > completely miss. If you would have gotten the moral of the story
> > then (again, with respect) you would see that, to these people, the
> > issue is far from "trash".
>
> For me I'd say generally that stories about ishoos rarely work. It's not
> because an ishoo story can't work, it's just that I think the writers are
> usually approaching it from the wrong end. I have this firm conviction
that
> the basic reason for telling a story must be the writer's conviction that
> they have a danged good story to tell. An idea for a plot, and characters,
> and events, that makes the writer think "dang, this is a great story, I
just
> have to get this thang down on paper!" kind of thing. For me storytelling
is
> about, well, stories, and stories are about events and characters. If you
> can make a point or two during the story, well all well and good, that's a
> real bonus that might push you up from "great story" to "classic story".
But
> the first thing has to be the story.
>
> I think a writer who is writing an ishoo story often approaches that from
> the wrong end. They start off with this thing they want to say, whatever
it
> is, then sit there chewing their pencil trying to think up a story that
> makes their point. The result is usually something contrived, or preachy,
> or, well, just not a very good story really. Its just doing things the
wrong
> way around. In attempting to make something deliberately to "speak to the
> audience" they usually end up with something that doesn't speak to anybody
> very much; starchy and po-faced and lacking spark.
>
> None of the great TOS episodes are ishoo stories, but they work by making
> points and saying things about people along the way. City On The Edge
> doesn't have a moral (maybe sort of the needs of the many or something,
but
> nothing direct). Balance Of Terror doesn't either, but for me the
reluctant
> Romulan Captain, questioning the very raison d'etre of his empire and duty
> *in our very first encounter with this civilisation* is a pure
masterstroke
> of writing (mind you it helps that they had Mark Lenard on hand to play it
> so well :). It makes some points about racial prejudice, but the story
isn't
> *about* the racial prejudice ishoo. And so on. When we look at the stories
> constructed around an ishoo, like Let That Be Your Last Battlefield or the
> risible Omega Glory; they just fall flat.
>
> Shakespeare is full of commentary on the human condition, but his plays
are
> great because his primary objective was to write something that would
please
> a rowdy audience at The Globe on a tuesday evening. That, in the end, is
> what matters.

Well stated!
Concur.

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

"Kweeg" <kweeg@nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Q7Xwj.4010$pM4.1504@pd7urf1no...
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47c4031f$0$2439$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>> For me I'd say generally that stories about ishoos rarely work. It's not
>> because an ishoo story can't work, it's just that I think the writers are
>> usually approaching it from the wrong end. I have this firm conviction
> that
>> the basic reason for telling a story must be the writer's conviction that
>> they have a danged good story to tell. An idea for a plot, and
>> characters,
>> and events, that makes the writer think "dang, this is a great story, I
> just
>> have to get this thang down on paper!" kind of thing. For me storytelling
> is
>> about, well, stories, and stories are about events and characters. If you
>> can make a point or two during the story, well all well and good, that's
>> a
>> real bonus that might push you up from "great story" to "classic story".
> But
>> the first thing has to be the story.
>>
>> I think a writer who is writing an ishoo story often approaches that from
>> the wrong end. They start off with this thing they want to say, whatever
> it
>> is, then sit there chewing their pencil trying to think up a story that
>> makes their point. The result is usually something contrived, or preachy,
>> or, well, just not a very good story really. Its just doing things the
> wrong
>> way around. In attempting to make something deliberately to "speak to the
>> audience" they usually end up with something that doesn't speak to
>> anybody
>> very much; starchy and po-faced and lacking spark.
>>
>> None of the great TOS episodes are ishoo stories, but they work by making
>> points and saying things about people along the way. City On The Edge
>> doesn't have a moral (maybe sort of the needs of the many or something,
> but
>> nothing direct). Balance Of Terror doesn't either, but for me the
> reluctant
>> Romulan Captain, questioning the very raison d'etre of his empire and
>> duty
>> *in our very first encounter with this civilisation* is a pure
> masterstroke
>> of writing (mind you it helps that they had Mark Lenard on hand to play
>> it
>> so well :). It makes some points about racial prejudice, but the story
> isn't
>> *about* the racial prejudice ishoo. And so on. When we look at the
>> stories
>> constructed around an ishoo, like Let That Be Your Last Battlefield or
>> the
>> risible Omega Glory; they just fall flat.
>>
>> Shakespeare is full of commentary on the human condition, but his plays
> are
>> great because his primary objective was to write something that would
> please
>> a rowdy audience at The Globe on a tuesday evening. That, in the end, is
>> what matters.
>
> Well stated!
> Concur.

Yes, well stated.

On 26 feb, 14:47, "Jaxtraw" <j...@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
> >> What kid can identify with Wesley Crusher, boy
> >> genius and starship pilot and *next stage of human evolution*?
>
> > Wasn't that being a slimey reptile-like creature shagging in some
> > swamp?
>
> Ah no, that was the *ultimate* fate of human evolution. First we all become
> like Wesley, then we become slimey reptile-like creatures shagging in some
> swamp.

I really really don't known which one is worse, being Wesley or a
highly intelligent Jar-Jar.

--
Gio

"Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:47c21f06$0$8089$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
> news:47c1bd5b$0$2437$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>> "The Outrageous Okona", anyone?
>
> At least Okona himself was a funny character - the actor didn't do a bad
> job with the material, consider.
>
> How about "The Royale"? Did that episode serve any purpose whatsoever?
Wasn't most of the point of "The Royale" (as far as the casino & subplot
soap-opera stuff was concerned) was that it was supposed to be bad, since
the scenario was based on what the aliens though was the humans "preferred
lifestyle" based on the book that the astronaut had in his hotel room?

Picard, on researching the book in the Enterprise computer, relayed the
information back to Riker, Worf and Data about the book ".....being badly
written, with shallow characters, filled with endless cliches......" and so
on.

And the sad thing IS...(drum roll, please)...it only gets worse. DS9 isn't
bad, but Voyager? That show is PC run amok. I don't mind having a woman
captain, but just for the sake of have a woman captain? A Native American XO
(we never find out what nation Commander Tonto belongs to). A black Vulcan
(Vulcans have races?). And the only human white guy is an ex-con lothario.
<a> wrote in message news:EPednWCWL5maKVzanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC thought,
> the deification of native americans, shoved down our throats, and loads
> and loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton. This episode was one
> long string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the epitome of
> cringe-worthiness! Congrats to this episode!
>

>enjamin Pavsner wrote:
>
> news:EPednWCWL5maKVzanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC
>> thought, the deification of native americans, shoved down our
>> throats, and loads and loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton.
>> This episode was one long string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the
>> epitome of cringe-worthiness! Congrats to this episode!
>
And the sad thing IS...(drum roll, please)...it only gets worse. DS9
> isn't bad, but Voyager? That show is PC run amok. I don't mind having
> a woman captain, but just for the sake of have a woman captain? A
> Native American XO (we never find out what nation Commander Tonto
> belongs to). A black Vulcan (Vulcans have races?). And the only human
> white guy is an ex-con lothario. <a> wrote in message

I didn't have a problem with any of those things per se. The sin Voyager
committed was to make them all so deathly, stultifyingly dull.

And that only post-TNG Trek could come up with the premise of a crew of
terrorists and the crew sent to apprehend them having to work together to
get home against overwhelming odds... and then have them all get along just
fine. So much could have been done with the initial premise of Voyager...
and none of it was.

A tense gritty drama about intensely reluctant bedfellows, in a ship that
barely survives from week to week held together with chicken wire and
string, facing shortages and hardships and perhaps, as the series
progresses, very gradually coming to trust and respect one another,
surviving another day not by endless supplies of applied phlebotinum but by
cunning and wits, that could have been some gripping TV. Instead we got
Roddenberry's non-conflicting utopians skipping around in the holodecks and
some bint in a catsuit. And Neelix. What a fecking waste.


Ian

--
http://www.jaxtrawstudios.com
sci-fi comics with shagging in

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47c563a8$0$8424$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >enjamin Pavsner wrote:
> >
> > news:EPednWCWL5maKVzanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> >> Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC
> >> thought, the deification of native americans, shoved down our
> >> throats, and loads and loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton.
> >> This episode was one long string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the
> >> epitome of cringe-worthiness! Congrats to this episode!
> >
> And the sad thing IS...(drum roll, please)...it only gets worse. DS9
> > isn't bad, but Voyager? That show is PC run amok. I don't mind having
> > a woman captain, but just for the sake of have a woman captain? A
> > Native American XO (we never find out what nation Commander Tonto
> > belongs to). A black Vulcan (Vulcans have races?). And the only human
> > white guy is an ex-con lothario. <a> wrote in message
>
> I didn't have a problem with any of those things per se. The sin Voyager
> committed was to make them all so deathly, stultifyingly dull.
>
> And that only post-TNG Trek could come up with the premise of a crew of
> terrorists and the crew sent to apprehend them having to work together to
> get home against overwhelming odds... and then have them all get along
just
> fine. So much could have been done with the initial premise of Voyager...
> and none of it was.
>
> A tense gritty drama about intensely reluctant bedfellows, in a ship that
> barely survives from week to week held together with chicken wire and
> string, facing shortages and hardships and perhaps, as the series
> progresses, very gradually coming to trust and respect one another,
> surviving another day not by endless supplies of applied phlebotinum but
by
> cunning and wits, that could have been some gripping TV. Instead we got
> Roddenberry's non-conflicting utopians skipping around in the holodecks
and
> some bint in a catsuit. And Neelix. What a fecking waste.

yep...

--

Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"

"Andrew Murray" <adKillSpammersmurary@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:47c531c6$0$27304$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Snake" <fluidSPAMstates_no+spam@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:47c21f06$0$8089$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> "Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
>> news:47c1bd5b$0$2437$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> "The Outrageous Okona", anyone?
>>
>> At least Okona himself was a funny character - the actor didn't do a bad
>> job with the material, consider.
>>
>> How about "The Royale"? Did that episode serve any purpose whatsoever?
> Wasn't most of the point of "The Royale" (as far as the casino & subplot
> soap-opera stuff was concerned) was that it was supposed to be bad, since
> the scenario was based on what the aliens though was the humans "preferred
> lifestyle" based on the book that the astronaut had in his hotel room?


As I mentioned earlier. Imagine if that astronauts book had been something
like 'Alive' or a HP Lovecraft story.
Man...He would really have been hating life.

But I really don't remember anything being cringe-worthy about it.

"Jaxtraw" <jax@knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote in message
news:47c563a8$0$8424$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >enjamin Pavsner wrote:
>>
>> news:EPednWCWL5maKVzanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>> Journey's End! Wow, this one had it all: that pinnacle of PC
>>> thought, the deification of native americans, shoved down our
>>> throats, and loads and loads of overwrought acting by Will Wheaton.
>>> This episode was one long string of cringe-worthy scenes, truly the
>>> epitome of cringe-worthiness! Congrats to this episode!
>>
> And the sad thing IS...(drum roll, please)...it only gets worse. DS9
>> isn't bad, but Voyager? That show is PC run amok. I don't mind having
>> a woman captain, but just for the sake of have a woman captain? A
>> Native American XO (we never find out what nation Commander Tonto
>> belongs to). A black Vulcan (Vulcans have races?). And the only human
>> white guy is an ex-con lothario. <a> wrote in message
>
> I didn't have a problem with any of those things per se. The sin Voyager
> committed was to make them all so deathly, stultifyingly dull.
>
> And that only post-TNG Trek could come up with the premise of a crew of
> terrorists and the crew sent to apprehend them having to work together to
> get home against overwhelming odds... and then have them all get along
> just
> fine. So much could have been done with the initial premise of Voyager...
> and none of it was.
>
> A tense gritty drama about intensely reluctant bedfellows, in a ship that
> barely survives from week to week held together with chicken wire and
> string, facing shortages and hardships and perhaps, as the series
> progresses, very gradually coming to trust and respect one another,
> surviving another day not by endless supplies of applied phlebotinum but
> by
> cunning and wits, that could have been some gripping TV. Instead we got
> Roddenberry's non-conflicting utopians skipping around in the holodecks
> and
> some bint in a catsuit. And Neelix. What a fecking waste.

Agreed - but you can't blame the Great Bird in any way for that fiasco. He
was long, long dead by then and did not have even a single fingernail, let
alone a hand, in the creation of Voyager. His last interest before he
passed away was OK'ing DS9.

Voyajerk was entirely, utterly a Boredom & Banality creation and production.

>
> Voyajerk was entirely, utterly a Boredom & Banality creation and
> production.

Speaking of Boredom & Banality...

Does anybody remember that Voyager episode were Balanna crash landed on a
planet? Some *playright* at a nearby village kept visiting her at her
marooned ship to get ideas for his plays or whatever that he held at the
villages 'Globe Theater'.

I don't know. Maybe it was just a dream that I had.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:51:29 -0500, "Robo-man" <duffy12@cox.net> wrote:

>Does anybody remember that Voyager episode were Balanna crash landed on a
>planet? Some *playright* at a nearby village kept visiting her at her
>marooned ship to get ideas for his plays or whatever that he held at the
>villages 'Globe Theater'.

The Ballad of B'elanna Torres, brave B'elanna Torres. One of my favorite
Voyager episodes. The guest star who played the playwright was superb!

"George Peatty" <peattyg47-1230@copper.net> wrote in message
news:rr5cs3htt9k3jarc1ltdkcu7m1mbce8r9a@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:51:29 -0500, "Robo-man" <duffy12@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Does anybody remember that Voyager episode were Balanna crash landed on a
>>planet? Some *playright* at a nearby village kept visiting her at her
>>marooned ship to get ideas for his plays or whatever that he held at the
>>villages 'Globe Theater'.
>
> The Ballad of B'elanna Torres, brave B'elanna Torres. One of my favorite
> Voyager episodes. The guest star who played the playwright was superb!


Ok... I only saw the last 20 min of it. Was it really a good episode?

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:00:50 -0500, "Robo-man" <duffy12@cox.net> wrote:

>Ok... I only saw the last 20 min of it. Was it really a good episode?

I thought so, yes. It is my favorite B'elanna episode.