RE: Hmmm.... | Report this post to moderator
By: Jadzia-Dax (Odo's file, contact) @ 11:32:58 on Aug 28, 2004 | (1)

Quote:

So the reason that Generations is at fault for the Borg first contact issue is because it shows a general disrespect for Gene Roddenberry by killing Kirk? That's quite a leap of logic you have going there...

No, GEN has a number of problems. It is a very complex film - essentially 2 films in one. And it does the following:

1.) Mischaracterization of Kirk.

...who becomes a comic book-like character that is cliche. Ie., the character is not only shown inconsistent but is essentially distilled down to functioning in terms of "memorable" phrases. Ie., he is given dialog in 2 different scenes in the Nexus where he says stuff like:

"I don't need to be lectured by you. I was out saving the galaxy when your grandfather was still in diapers. And frankly, I think the galaxy owes me one I was like you once... so worried about duty and obligations that I couldn't see anything past this uniform. And in the end, what did it get me? Nothing. Not this time."

The above SILLY and alot of nonsense. Picard and Kirk are around the same age and have a similar number of years of experience, irrespective of what eras they are coming from. Ie., they are peers. I believe for Kirk, born in 2233 and sucked into the Nexus in 2293, this made him 60 years old. Picard, born in 2305, with GEN taking place in 2371, would be 66.

Then you have more "Kirk cliche" where his dialog is reduced down to:

"Well, let me tell you something...don't. Don't let them promote you... Don't let them transfer you... Don't let anything take you off the Bridge of that ship because while you're there, you can make a difference."

This is a stereotypical, simple-minded characterization of Kirk. To have him disrespectful of another man in uniform, ignoring him while he cooks eggs. It's insulting.

2.) Micharacterization of Picard

...who is written to treat Kirk like a child. Again, this is nonsense because these 2 men are peers. As I have noted before in other threads (that you may not have seen), Braga has openly admitted to hating Star Trek when he was first hired and Moore, although claiming to be a "fan", ended up doing more damage to TOS characters (eg., how he portrayed Scotty in TNG "Relics") than anyone else. And Moore's footprint is ALL OVER the Nexus dialog between Kirk and Picard. It is his idiotic forte of insulting portrayals of the TOS characters as has beens.

And the drug-induced fantasy of a Picard is a Braga thing, having nothing to do with ANYTHING previously shown about Picard. After TNG "Family", which Moore WROTE, there was a storyline that indicated that Picard had a strong draw to possibly remaining on Earth to work with his long time friend under the sea with the Atlantis Project. The SAME Picard who has ALWAYS been shown maintaining dramatically SPARSE quarters, well-appointed and pristine, yet he is suddenly thrust into a "fantasy" involving a very busy, junk-filled Victorian English setting. It's nonsense.

3.) The El-Aurians

Soran was reduced down to spouting off dialog that merely told the audience - "you know, I'm El-Aurian. Really!". And fortunately, Guinan had already been fully developed by then and her role was easy.

4.) Destruction of 1701-D

The ship's destruction was meaningless, carried out by 2 somewhat popular characters - Lursa and B'Etor. Yet one need only compare to the destruction of the 1701 in TSFS, which underscored the attachment that not only the crew, but the audience had to the ship. To the point where at the end of TVH, cheers went up in the crowd when the 1701-A was revealed.

5.) The Borg

I think I have described earlier the nonsense of inserting a Borg theme back this far. Ie., by having El-Aurian contact in Kirk's era, where one of the characters had a motivation based on his run-in with the Borg.

6.) Captain John Harriman

I don't even know where to begin except that this thing about making characters idiots in order to have the main character appear "brilliant" is insulting. And of ALL people, a Captain of an Enterprise. You compare with a Christopher Pike, a Kirk, a Garrett, a Picard and then there's this guy.

7.) Data and Geordi

I have had alot of off and on issues with how Geordi has been written by Moore - eg., TNG "Relics" and here in GEN. And it has to do with crafting the character to essentially be oblivious to other characters and their problems. And in the case of GEN, Geordi and Data, supposedly "best friends", has Geordi essentially ignoring his "best friend" when he starts having serious mechanical problems with the emotion chip - all to draw out the drama of Data's actual malfunction. Which of course comes right at the time when he's needed the most - the revelation of Soran's plans.

And the whole execution of the emotion chip subplot was annoying. Although the "fear" part was somewhat better and relevent to the actual scene. Yet even that means that over 4 decades of experience that Data had being a Star Fleet Officer, was thrown out rather than show what should have been a standard response from him for such a situation. If anything, the "fear" response from the emotion chip would have worked better in FC when he was given skin and now experienced new sensations. However, the "fear" response was actually inserted into FC, afterwhich Data was ordered to "turn off" the emotion chip at that time.

And on and on...

Quote:

Quote:What, because the El-Aurians were in contact with humans in the 23rd century? According to "Time's Arrow" [TNG], we've been in contact since the 19th century!

But guess what? Except for dear Sam Clemmens, NO ONE in that era knew that Guinan was anything BUT "Human".

If you're going to take my comments out of context in order to create an argument, you should be less obvious about it...

On the contrary. My point is that your example doesn't hold water in that during the time when Guinan was on Earth in the 18th century, El-Auria was fine and dandy and had not been attacked by the Borg yet. That didn't happen until the 23rd century, at least according to her in TNG "Q Who?".

Quote:

Quote:(Admittedly, they weren't making their presence known quite that far back,

...by not quoting the context in your next paragraph.

Quote:Exactly.

I thought you might agree!

Yes - see when I do my arguments, I quote each section down the line.

Quote:

Quote:My problem is NOT with Humans being in contact with El-Aurians.

Really? Then why did you say...

BORG. The timing of THIS particular "contact" and under what circumstances it was done. ;-)

Quote:

Quote:It is the fact that the El-Aurians were there in GEN, why? Because they were refugees. And WHO made them "refugees"? Right, the Borg.

Check your timelines. They had been refugees of the Borg for three decades at that point (according to the semi-canonical Star Trek Chronology, which explains some otherwise difficult travel-time issues).

I know the timelines. But does Braga and Moore? One of the crew on the 1701-B says:

"The Lakul is one of two ships transporting El-Aurian refugees to Earth. "

???

Refugees??? After some 28 years if you assume Guinan's mention of "century" equalled 100 years prior?

Quote:

It's not implausible that most of the 'listeners' weren't busy chatting in detail on the record about the cybernetic organisms that killed their people a couple of decades ago...

Really? They were NOT Federation citizens. Now they are being "transported" to Earth per the above. You think that Earth allows anyone to randomly come and travel (perhaps to get to Federaton HQ) or live there without getting background information on them? The fact that someone in the Federation provided not one, but two "transport" ships to ferry 150 of them to Earth is not insignificant. And all that time when they were being ferried by the Federation to Earth before they ran into the Nexus, you think that none of them were interviewed for name, place of birth, spouses, children, occupation, medical status, reasons for request of refugee status, yadda yadda?

Don't fall into the Braga-Moore trap.

Quote:

In any case, refugees or not, the timeline is exactly the same, leaving the last two quotes I referenced at odds with each other.

The PROBLEM is having 150 "refugees", where one is insane because of what the Borg did to his family and then goes over the edge once he is reunited with them in the Nexus and is then "ripped away". I mean, when you give this character dialog like:

"There was a time when I wouldn't hurt a fly. Then the Borg came."

I mean come on.

Quote:

Quote:But the fact that Soran's WHOLE existence and obsession was due to the Borg and thus even if the Nexus never existed, his state of mind regarding the loss of his family, was ALL "Borg" related.

Wow, and you're simultaneously arguing to Steve that Generations doesn't deal with mortality issues?

No - and WHERE does Soran do that? His dialog has little or nothing to do with his family. If you look at the script, there is some dialog there that was much of it cut from the film. But even then, it's minimal, essentially a few lines between Picard and Soran about Soran's wife and children. Yet we have no look into what Soran's fantasy was in the Nexus. So what he says and what he does is in conflict.

Quote:

Quote:Thus by the time of the 24th century, there should have been some info on the "Borg" and Picard, et al wouldn't have had to stare blindly at a Cube not knowing what it was and then going through the 20 questions with Guinan regarding who the Borg were in TNG "Q Who?".

Considering his relationship with Guinan, this is true with or without Generations.

On the contrary - after TNG "Q Who?" when a supposed previous "relationship" between Picard and Guinan had been hinted at, a pair of episodes and its revelation in TNG "Time's Arrow I & II", was crafted mainly for the fans (or so the fan media indicated back then). But again, back in the 1800s, El-Auria hadn't been attacked by the Borg yet.

Quote:

Quote:Quote:
In any case, if we're already accepting that Guinan never bothered to mention the Borg to Picard before "Q Who?",

NOT just Guinan. What about the REST of them?

Good! You agree!

Yes - yet you are arguing against my argument that the Federation itself should have KNOWN about the Borg as far back as the 23rd century. You know, Kirk's time.

Quote:

So you agree, then? The issue existed long before Generations, and a ship that may have been full of 'non-involved' refugees like Guinan doesn't make much of a difference one way or the other?

???? You are USING GEN to claim that events that supposedly occured before GEN, but were only introduced to the audience, BY GEN, are not the fault of GEN?

If that is what you are arguing, it's nonsense.

What I am arguing is that GEN suddenly introduces a conflicting backstory that essentially makes the earlier series characters look like idiots. This is no different from ENT "Regeneration" where Earth of the 22nd century now has knowledge of the Borg, thus Picard, et al, should have known about them.

Quote:

Geez... Even when you agree, you disagree! ;-)

I'm not seeing your arguments in that light - at least not the way you phrased them.

Quote:

Quote:And let me tell you... Personally, when GEN released, I didn't care.

Then why is it GEN's fault now? You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm afraid not. I am generally willing to hand-wave over single transgressions. But if you look at what came after GEN, the pattern is clear. And GEN ends up being the template for HOW one can disrespect canon by introducing elements previously considered "unknown" in later times, to characters in earlier times, thus negating the reactions of those characters in the later era.

And thus I cannot accept it.

Quote:

Quote:However, when you take that, and then look at the Borg suddenly going back in time in FC, and then you find that 7 of 9's parents - the Hansens had actually been "studying" the Borg... And now you have an ENT "Regeneration" with Borg reanimating out of nowhere on 22nd century Earth.... I mean come on.

So is this really because Generations actually did something wrong, or are you just ticked off in retrospect?

GEN DID do it "wrong". And it invalidates TNG "Q Who?", which was a powerful episode about "pride", with Q teaching Picard a "lesson".

Quote:

If the latter's the case, I don't really see why Generations deserves the blame much more than, say, "Q Who?", where it was established that "old friend" Guinan had known about the Borg for a hundred years in the first place...

But what you fail to realize is that nearly all of TNG was "standalone". IMHO, TNG "Q Who?" was to be a single instance of an intractable enemy and then The End. However TNG decided to continue on with the Borg theme ad infinitum, and GEN, which is mostly a TNG film, continues this trend. However in GEN, the Borg are now introduced back into the 23rd century awareness, something that was NEVER intended by TNG "Q Who?". That ep never established WHEN the El-Aurians had contacted Earth. And at least TNG "Time's Arrow I & II" had Guinan's contact happen before her planet was destroyed. However GEN puts El-Aurian contact "as refugees from the Borg", RIGHT SMACK in the midst of characters we know - but back in the 23rd century, BEFORE TNG "Q Who?". They could have kept the bulk of them on the periphery of the Federation until the 24th century, after the timeframe of TNG "Q Who?".

Quote:

Quote:Soran's WHOLE EXISTENCE was based on the MISERY he had because of the Borg, and the Nexus would supposedly soothe this... So of ALL people... He should have been the blabbiest of them all regarding that which destroyed what he supposedly loved, thus leading to his obsession to get back with them in the Nexus.

I've never heard of a blabby listener. He seemed more interested in getting info about the Nexus than in discussing his personal life.

THAT is what I'm talking about. Everything he was shown doing WAS "blabby". So to be consistent with his supposed contrived personality, he should have ALSO blabbed about the Borg before. But then his doing so would NOT be like an "El-Aurian". And THAT is why I'm complaining because almost EVERYTHING he did was like a generic bad guy. NOT an El-Aurian, except because dialog claims he is.

See what I'm saying? He's inconsistent, not only as a generic individual, but when following a species archetype. And certainly Roddenberry DID have a species archetype put together for El-Aurians with the introduction of Guinan. EVERY show (particularly science fiction with various aliens) has archetypes, otherwise you run into problems determining what makes one alien different from another.

Quote:

Quote:It started that trend and it was continued because it was like the pioneer out there saying:

"Canon is irrevelent. Consistency is irrelevent. We will use contrived time travel to incorporate nonsense elements to make this universe our own."

An interesting point, but as you said earlier:

Quote:That's bull.

No, it's quite obvious. ;-)

Quote:

A dubious continuity error started this off? Then maybe it was started earlier by DS9 rewriting the Trills, or TNG giving the Klingons an honor-based warrior culture, or by making the Romulans treacherous instead of honor-bound, or by Spock not smiling any more after "The Cage"... How can you claim that Generations, of all things, was the critical point of all of this?

Wow. I am only critiquing GEN. I have critiqued the REST of the Trek series on their OWN merits, and SIMILAR issues. But you seek to go beyond the context of what I am saying about what GEN does. THAT in fact expands the scope of this.

The fact is that what GEN does has longer term consequences on TNG itself because of one thing. Marketing of the Borg. And in fact, with the opening of the Las Vegas "Borg Experience" or whatever the hell it's called, starting with GEN, this group of marketable beings has been inserted earlier and earlier and earlier into the canon of Trek.

Quote:

It respected continuity so much that it had Lursa and B'Etor's bird-of-prey blow up EXACTLY like Chang's ship! ;-)
(That means I'm kidding about the last part.)

Well now you are arguing the re-use of special effects. ;-)

Quote:

Quote:And it's funny how people want to skip over the transgressions related to TNG and point fingers at VOY. ;-) Those transgressions started at TNG and VOY picked them up and ran with them.

If I'm blaming First Contact as the first offender, how is this relevant?

My above comment is more expostionary for other readers of this sub-thread. It only gives an example of more post-GEN transgressions - but specifically TNG-related.

Quote:

In any case, the Voyager flaw was far more blatant than any of the previous ones, even if it is potentially explainable. At worst, Generations might qualify as an 'oversight', a nit to be picked.

No - GEN placing Borg knowledge by the Federation back into the 23rd century opens up the "permission" to continue to do so throughout the TNG films and finally into VOY, where it wasn't until the 3rd season of the show where Borg appear - and even then, it is because the show's premise DID hurl them into the Delta Quadrant. Since DS9 was already taking place partially in the Gamma Quadrant and the Federation had their dealings in the Alpha Quadrant, with occassional forays into the Beta Quadrant where the Romulans and Klingons had territory, then all that was left to cover in "more detail" WAS the Delta Quadrant. And TNG established that the Borg were IN the Delta Quadrant per TNG "Q Who?".

Quote:

Quote:Did you notice the idiotic dialog crafted for him that sounds like a literal recitation OF the species archetype where he says to Geordi:

"As you may or may not be aware, I am an El-Aurian. Some people call us a race of "listeners". We listen."

I mean THIS IS LAME.

But the point you are arguing is...

Quote:The character isn't even consistent within the El-Aurian archetype.

Is it inconsistent, or is it just lame? There's a big difference.

See my earlier argument where the character is made to act NOT like an El-Aurian (very aggressive and talkative), yet because that is inconsistent with the El-Aurian archetype, then he is given dialog to tell Geordi and we the audience that he IS an "El-Aurian" because "El-Aurians" are supposed to be a "race of listeners". So now he's going to sit down and supposedly shut up and "listen".

????

I know there was a torture scene that was eliminated from the film. I can imagine what that was like.

Quote:

Quote:He does the complete opposite. Aggressive, in your face. Until such time when the scene is ratcheted back in to at least suggest that he WAS supposed to be an "El-Aurian".

So when he's aggressive, it's inconsistent, but when he listens, it's lame? What exactly were you hoping for?

You missed it. Merely stating what someone is or does is LAME. SHOWING US by ACTIONS is what I'm talking about and I gave you the example of how Guinan was shown behaving to underscore WHY El-Aurians were called "a race of listeners".

Having a character state an archetypical definition for themself is First Grade writing. Showing why someone is considered that, by crafting scenes with the character appearing to stay on the periphery of groups or in the position to be an advisor, is what GOOD writers would do to indicate the SAME thing.

The fact that Soran did no 'listening" except during a torture session that apparently yielded him nothing, is not consistent with the archetype. If he had "listened" to Picard's arguments on Veridian III and perhaps even decided to change his mind at the last minute (meaning he was willing to hear Picard out) - but then got caught in a quandry because he might have already gone too far and couldn't stop the process once started - then THAT might have brought him closer to his archetype. He would have symbollically been a redeemable character.

An example of the above is the "Grinch" in the famous cartoon "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas". His heart "two sizes too small" and his bitterness towards the people of Whoville... is suddenly "converted" because of a little who - Cindy Lou Who. And suddenly he "sees the light". But then his sled is so packed full of all the Whoville stuff that it begins to tip off the top of the mountain and his little mutt can't hold it - ie., it's too late and he tries with all his might to keep the sled from sliding down the mountain and crashing into town... But of course there is the deux ex machina where his "heart" is now filled with love and he gets the strength of "10 Grinches" or whatever and saves the day and is redeemed.

I mean, this sort of theme has been out there for a LONG time and could have worked in GEN for Soran. Ie., Soran is "reformed". THAT would be a more Roddenberry way of concluding the saga of Soran. Even if he still died, he has been redeemed and a trait of Humanity - "forgiveness" (or any other similar trait), would have come to the fore and been embraced by him. Just like Alex DeLarge in "A Clockwork Orange", who is reformed in the end - although initially because of an experiment that forces him to become violently ill when he tries to be violent. And that left him vunerable to the wrath of his former victims with no way to protect himself... etc. Yet he is finally "cured" of both plot device extremes, and is supposedly brought back into society.

Quote:

Look at Martus Mazur: He's the perfect listener when he chooses to be, but is boisterous just as often. Soran perfectly fits the El-Aurian archetype that was set out by Martus.

Yet I have also complained about much of what happened in DS9 "Rivals" with this character. Although the ep was more to be humorous than dramatic and not really focussed on that character but on the events set into motion due to the device that he had obtained and the reactions by the station personnel. And Soran does no such "fitting" any archetype except the one instance I mention when Soran and Guinan supposedly sense each other and Soran darts away.

Quote:

Are you mad because he doesn't act like an El-Aurian, or are you mad because he doesn't act like Guinan?

Guinan was in fact the archetypical definition of the species, given not only her own behavior, but her stories regarding her family and what they did and even Q's comments.

I'm not saying that all El-Aurians are Guinan. I'm saying that rather than have characters spout off what they are supposed to be like, they ACT LIKE they are supposed to be like. ;-) There's a difference. And that difference separates elementary school character writing from college-level and above character writing.

Quote:

Quote:And all the existence of Soran does is completely deflates everything that had been built up about Guinan and makes it all meaningless.

Well, that answers that...

Again - see my above. Simply stating that one is supposed to be from a "race of listeners" and showing us, is like night and day. ;-)

Quote:

Quote:Ie., the character is made to totally discredit himself and the species.

Really? Boy, that was a really bad idea on the writers' part... They should have planned on doing something else, like not discrediting Soran and the El-Aurians.

You should take a look at the interview that Nimoy did for one of the Brazillian Trek clubs that Steve posted here, where the interview portion regarding GEN goes as follows:

"TB: You were invited to be the director of STAR TREK GENERATIONS but ultimately declined, because you were informed there wouldn't be time to fix the problems you saw in the script. What were those problems?

Nimoy: Ahhn, it's been a long time, I'm trying to remember. (pause) I just felt that the story did not really successfully come to grips with any major concern that interested me. It felt as a mechanical construction of a conflict with an individual, a particular individual whom I didn't care much about him, didn't really represent a meaningful force to me. I just didn't care about it. It wasn't something that touched me, or something that I felt was accessible for me.

TB: Had you been the director of GENERATIONS would Kirk had died?

Nimoy: Oh, another hypothetical question! (Laughs)

TB: Oh, yeah, I like hypothetical questions, you know...

Nimoy: (laughs) I don't know. I can say that I do remember that I thought that it was a rather unglorious death, frankly. It was a battle in the desert with some nasty guy, whom I didn't care much about, and there was not much at stake, except his life, which of course is important, but... when Spock died in STAR TREK II, he died saving the ship and the crew. In the case of Kirk fighting this unimportant character and dying, I thought it was rather unfortunate. I tell you this, hypothetically, if I had been the director, I would have tried very hard to make his death more meaningful, someway.

TB: think the major criticism concerning Kirk's death it was that it was meaningless.

Nimoy: Yeah. "

And he certainly says it best.

Quote:

Do you think this may be a backlash to the fact that you like the movie so much and feel guilty about it?

I have indicated what I "liked" about GEN - the effects. ;-)

Quote:

Quote:My problem is... I... loved GEN... And it's... LAME.

Please take that in the humorous spirit in which it was intended. :-)

No - you manufacture something that isn't my opinion about it. Oh well. Hopefully the above will clarify the difference. ;-)

Quote:

But to sum up your actual argument about Soran...

So, the character doesn't act like an El-Aurian except when he does because the writers were out to defile the grave of Gene Roddenberry and everything he stands for by killing Kirk, destroying the Enterprise, messing up the El-Aurians, and placing the cornerstone for the eventual destruction of the entire continuity of Star Trek by having Kirk tell Guinan she doesn't have to live like a refugee?

Quote:Exactly.

Oh.

Okay, then.

It's a shame that you miss the whole point. But I think the above should help. ;-)

Quote:

So, how 'bout them Klingons?

I am a Vulcan fan. I don't care about Klingons.

--------

"I think the show talked to people through the characters. They're stories that speak to the heart. They talk about love, they talk about friendship, they talk about loyalty, they talk about patriotism, exploration, curiosity, reaching out... And I think all those things still touch people. Even when you look at a 30-year old show, it still has something to say." - D.C. Fontana, Sci Fi Channel Special Edition TOS 1998
----
"If the season finale involves the re-built USS Reliant coming back in time to the 21st Century crewed by Moogie, Dr. Selar, Morn, Transporter Chief Kyle, and the Salt Vampire, then we'll know that Coto has gone too far." - tomba1701

Reply

Quote

Parent

Top