It’s time for the monthly data stream from the Alpha Quadrant, and since the last data stream did not make it, the crew is hanging out for news and letters from home. This time, something big is in there. It’s a hologram of Reg Barclay sent to help Voyager make modifications that will enable the ship and crew to blast through a gas giant straight into the Alpha Quadrant. Yet there is something bogus about this Barclay. In reality, his modifications will not protect the crew; they will die. Back on Earth, we find out that the data stream did not make it to Voyager. It was intercepted by Ferengi, who plan to sell Seven’s nanoprobes at high profit. The doctor is suspicious of the Barclay hologram, but can prove nothing. Reg Barclay realizes he probably told his girlfriend about the Pathfinder mission. She is convinced by a persuasive Counselor Troi to reveal the plan. Time is running out –the Ferengi ship has opened the ‘fold’ and Voyager is about to enter. But Barclay masquerades as the hologram and convinces the Ferengi that Janeway has figured out a way to come through the fold unharmed. He embellishes his story with tales of Hirogen, Vidiian and Borg weaponry, and the Ferengi close the fold.
It’s not a bad episode, but it’s easy to tell from the start that the Barclay hologram is evil. It must be, or the ship would be returning to the alpha quadrant early.
"but it’s easy to tell from the start that the Barclay hologram is evil. It must be, or the ship would be returning to the alpha quadrant early."
ReplyDeleteWell unless you have looked at future spoilers(which isn't what the creators of the series intent) they might WELL get back to the alpha quadrant before the end of the season - the season continuing in the Alpha quadrant - your Nit picking is SO pointless at times - you are just picking fault for the sake of it or worse as evidence of your discernment which i have pointed out countless times elsewhere on here, is frequently lacking in(scientific) knowledge + limited in memory,imagination + deductive reasoning...ALL IMO naturally
This is not a problem with my nitpicking being pointless. This is an issue with any show where there is a reset button. I hadn't looked at future spoilers; my comment was made because it was obvious to me simply from the structure of the episode, and from watching similar episodes in other, unrelated television series. This is a fault with the writers, who could have avoided such pitfalls by not working any 'we might be returning to the Alpha quadrant right now' storylines into the plots of their episodes.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Al, you seem to think that because you disagree with me, that you are definitely right and I am definitely wrong. From there, you extrapolate that my nitpicking is, like resistance, futile. If you cannot see the basic flaw in that logic, then I think that weakens your arguments. Also, tacking IMO on the end of insulting themed comments does not make it okay (as in: "Al, you are shortsighted and consumed with your own correctness - IMO naturally." See, that is just wrong. :)
Anyway, I am glad you are back, as you are adding some life to this site. Also, I admit that the Voyager reviews - and nits - were my first attempt at blogging Star Trek. I think you'll find that my Next Generation blogs are much improved - although I would hope, and I am sure, that you will disagree with much of them. :)
Star Trek is FAR too addictive + self destroying for someone who has obsessive/compulsive tendencies like myself - I really need to try limit by ST experience(which has been immense for a time when i was younger) to watching(not more than one ST incarnation at the time)/ a bit of cogitating over the various elements/interactions/ethics whatever of a show.Though i LOVE to read other's reviews (again i need to limit such pleasures)*regularly* discussing trek etc with other trekies risks my mental health too much - ie my disappearance is NOTHING personal its how i have to manage my life for quality of life.
ReplyDelete"Al, you are shortsighted and consumed with your own correctness - IMO naturally." See, that is just wrong. :)"
Yes i sound pompous as hell here, i've been lumbered with a mind that wired with "excessive intensity of emotion" so the longterm degree of consistent pleasure= reliable i've got from Voyager and so many of its aspects,perhaps gets the better of my objectivity and i start taking it personally - "why make such minor gripes at a great show?" etc - objectively= "WHY the hell shouldn't you?" as a scientist I'm sounding like my worst nightmare, the irrationality of a victim of an organised religion :0
Well surely using IMO is INFINITELY better that not bothering with an IMO at all. I might use IMO because i am lazy(will power is a bit of a luxury in people chronic mental health probs)but i live in fear of becoming arrogant/up my own arse to such a deluded, hopeless + irredeemable extent. The WHOLE point of me using it is to indicate my fallibility, i do make mistakes, i do misinterpret, miscomprehend, not be clever enough to understand/mentally 'see' something (AKA short sighted) at least not after a long time and a lot of thought. HOWEVER i hope as a demonstration of my fallibility, from the expression " we learn through our mistake" your description of my use of IMO has unhinged me somewhat hopefully this might make me think more when i do the same again...
"Again, Al, you seem to think that because you disagree with me, that you are definitely right and I am definitely wrong. From there, you extrapolate that my nitpicking is, like resistance, futile. If you cannot see the basic flaw in that logic, then I think that weakens your arguments."
ReplyDeleteIn science/scientific (as compared to the ambiguous nature of common sense and practicality of every day language) there IS NO such as 100% certainty ( so i don't understand how any real scientist could be an Atheist for example). eg If you drop a ball from your hand to the ground what would happen? The same result seems to happen everywhere/all the time and gets called a fact but in the strictest of scientific senses it is not a 100% certainty this action will happen, to do so the result would have to be repeated an infinite number of times (which would take an infinite length of time) ie its practically IMPOSSIBLE to conduct such an experiment
As i explained its not suitable for me to keep coming back to points for more discussion. The posts i leave are then up there just as much as your comments are "in the line of fire" They are no more invulnerable to criticism and flawed logic than yours or any other comments that people make public and know will face analysis + criticism - that is the nature of debate to see the points made on comments and made the points themselves to try to get the most objective interpretation or at least commonest view.
The i'm definitely right attitude that i was conscious of was about the physics of the Hot air Balloon in "Blink of an Eye" (you seemed to think(?) continuous heating (from beneath the balloon) was needed for it to float up/take off - Now i might have misinterpreted what you were actually saying about the blooper in the balloon take off in BOAE but at least i should know basic Physics(as it been relentlessly beaten into my head over a increasingly science prominent tertiary education + continued eduction/application through life) like the general Public knows about counting base 10.
"This is an issue with any show where there is a reset button"
Don't you think there should some decent shows
with a reset button like NG + Voyager - the latter still has had some neat season arcs eg Hirogen S4. The alternatives are eg DS9 + Babylon 5 which makes even DS9 look like it has such a light arc show. There are benefits/ disadvantages to each. A major one is that casual viewers can get FAR MORE out of reset button shows and WHY should they be punished just because they don't have as much time to spend on a show than other. Also the chances that a show with the arc already prepared before the series starts will be guaranteed the future to tell the story effectively aren't guaranteed (i can't remember if B5 was lucky or the story had to be ended more quickly than intended) i'm not saying they shouldn't be made just the risk for disappointment is greater.Though series arcs can add so much to the show abilities to entertain/drama Personally i find it very irritating trying to remember the relevant details of events/characters from episode(s) a series or/and more ago each time their an arc episode.
"This is a fault with the writers, who could have avoided such pitfalls by not working any 'we might be returning to the Alpha quadrant right now' storylines into the plots of their episodes."
Well any pitfalls luckily don't spoil my enjoyment from the episode + don't want them to avoid such stories because of them - THEY MAKE great entertainment - even early on in the series when it was certain Voyager was NOT going home eg worrying if something will go wrong, who is behind the trap etc. When the borg was mentioned("inside man") as being potentially involved, i was totally hooked for a moment with the possibility of their fiendish involvement!
Interesting...even though I felt an IMO was insufficient, what you said was true: it was much better than nothing, and I did appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteVoyager obviously has immense importance to you, which is why you cherish and defend it. I respect and understand that, and there were many times when I shared those feelings, although perhaps not as intensely as you. I felt somewhat let down by the last 1.5 seasons and felt that some of the great work was undone. But Voyager was the show that reintroduced me to the Star Trek world after about eight years of being away (I was an avid viewer of TOS when it was in re-runs in the 80s, and of TNG in its initial run). I will always be grateful for that, and I still believe that at its best, Voyager produced arguably some of the most complete and polished Trek episodes ever made.