The "What You Leave Behind" Board is becoming very full with this conversation, so I decided to open the Topic here.

Deep Space Nine Rules. Voyager sucks. Any questions?

I do Agree With You Rene. DS9 has deep stories that can move you and make you laugh. Voyager never seemed to go the extra step to get the veiwer emotionally invovled. Now I've never seen all of the voyager episdoes, so maybe there is one out there somewhere.

But keep in Mind, I still haven't seen all the DS9 episdoes yet. But from I have seen, DS9, to me, is far superior in plot, character, and emotional value. That's what I like to see in show.

I agree that DS9 was superior to Voyager.

Let's see--I knew the name of Dr. Bashir's teddy bear, I knew about his doubts and problems with being genetically enhanced, I knew what his favorite holo-program was. I knew about Garak's neuroses. I knew about Kira's struggles with what she did as a rebel. I knew about Dukat's love for his children. I knew about Sisko's baseball. I KNEW the folks on DS9.

I don't know why BLT became a Maquis (she was not from areas that had any Cardassian oppression). I don't know why Chakotay decided so quickly to drop his Maquis beliefs and become Mr. Starfleet. I don't know anything about the crew from looking at the stuff in their quarters. Fact is, because it was set on one ship, I should have known these guys much better than the DS9 folks, but the writers just never made me care. There's other reasons why I prefer DS9, but perhaps none are more important.

Well, I'm glad to see that it's so far unanimous that DS9 is (vastly) superior to Voyager. As I see it, the most basic premise of DS9 dealt with developing realistic characters, while incorporating plots involving politics, religion, ethics, etc. In the end, DS9 fulfilled this premise, with a finale featuring sundry topics such as nationalism, rebellions, intrigue, and more.

Conversely Voyager never fulfilled its premise - a lone Starfleet ship searching for home. While they get home in the end, it had essentially no payoff. They dealt with none of the immediate implications of returning to the Alpha Quadrant. Never mind that apart from The Doctor and MAYBE Seven, there was virtually no long-term character development throughout the series, it would have been nice to see the reactions of the crew as they returned home. Voyager failed because it abandoned its premise. What's the point of trying to do TNG light?

DS9 over Voyager!
Definitely!

Does anyone have the guts to come forward and defend Voyager?

Um, it had a great opening theme? (But alas, never lived up to that promise of wonder and exploration).

Voyager was docked at a really cool space station in its first episode.

Hell Yeah, Chronicler.

Torres & Kes were both great eye candy!

I'll say that DS9 was better, for many reasons which I'll mention briefly, including good characters and character development, a powerful ship, and interesting storylines. I enjoyed the fact that there was much less Starfleet presence throughout the series and the Federation was not alwasy depicted as a perfect, utopian society with no flaws. DS9 had many memorable episodes, unlike Voyager, which was simple sci-fi on a weekly basis.

I must say, however, that I think the Voyager is a beautiful ship.

Indeed it is, but I have a definite soft spot for that Cardassian Monstrosity DS9.

DS9 is vastly superior to Voyager, no question about that.

DS9 had intrigue, political manipulations, character development, believable relationships and a really cool piece of real estate. DS9 wasn't afraid to give it's characters a dark side that made them much more realistic and people had doubt about their own faith in the federation ideals.

The alien races, such as the Bajorans, the Cardassians etc., were weldefined and 3-dimensional. I felt that I knew them if not as good as the Federation then as good as the Klingons or perhaps better.


Voyager on the other hand had unbelievable amounts of supplies, relations for the sake of the story and a neat ship. The characters was the personification of the federation ideal: good, freindly, political correct etc. Whatever dark side or alternative viewpoint we saw would be forgotten the very next episode. People didn't develop, they just changed. As Palandine noticed Chakotay just changed from Maquis to Mr. Starfleet, from being a man with a bullseye on his back Paris suddenly became everybodys best freind etc. Tuvok didn't seem to change at all, and that is just as frustating.

The aliens was shallow and 1-dimensional. Even recurring races was criminally unexplored. I'm still having problems with understanding what makes the Kazon tick, why was the Viidians so hostile, what was the Talaxians ideals etc.


This post turns out to be longer than I expected so let my finish wíth one last arguement: recurring characters.

DS9 had a host of well-developed recurring characters: Garak, Damar, Dukat, Weyoun, Martok, Winn, Bareil and I could come up with more. Voyager had Seska and Culluh (that is the only two that immediately comes to mind). If you took a character like Garak or Dukat and transferred them to Voyager they would completely overshaddow everybody. Dukat had more depth and substance than all Voyagers recurrings put together, come to think about it he was much more interesting than any character on Voyager, the main cast included.

Okay I'll stop now before this becomes to repetitive, but that just my 2 cent.

This snippet of an interview with Kate Mulgrew was posted August 5th at TrekNation:

"I would think quite naturally it [Voyager] got criticized because of a female captain," Mulgrew told SFX Magazine (via TrekWeb).

Mulgrew has a few theories about why Voyager bore the brunt of so much criticism. "Somebody brought something up, which may be valid. Good Star Trek is about the ship going out to explore, as opposed to a ship being lost and having to explore to survive," she said.

Well, there you have it. God forbid any actor (other than Robert Beltran) actually talk about BAD WRITING. Nope, it’s A. Because she was a woman, and B. Because it wasn’t about exploration, never mind the fact that Janeway made a detour every other day to investigate every outershit space anomaly.

We can also surmise from her statement that she feels DS9 wasn’t "good Star Trek."

So I bet she thinks anyone who doesn't like DS9 doesn't like it because of the Black Captain. Or people who hate TNG hate it because they don't like bald people. Sheesh...she thinks Trek fans are sexist. Nice compliment.

I liked that Voyager was going to be a series with a female captain. I thought that it was about time.

But is wasn't the captain, or that the ship was a the delta quadrant--it was the lack of Characterization, the lack of Continuity, the lack of alot of things. I never knew the charaters. I never knew their dark side--I barely knew thier light side. All I knew is they had an unremitting desire to go home, but sometimes they didn't even have that, becasue it wasn't part of that week's plot.

The only charaters on Voyager that even got the chance for charaterization was Seven, Janeway, Holodoc and every now a then, B'Elanna. Those other charaters--Paris, Chakotay, Kim, Tuvok--were just a waste of good potential.

One of my Favorite Voyager episodes (and they are few) is Mortal Coil--a Neelix episode. Why? Neelix when through emotional trama. He lost his faith, and almost killed himself. That episode showed me something about him--deep emotional characterization.

DS9 on the other hand, I knew what made every character tick. Even every minor character. I knew Sisko and I knew his family. I new Kira, and I knew her past and all of her struggles. I knew Odo from the beginning when he was the only one of his kind, to the end, when it was his people at war against the Alpha Quadrant. Each episdoe usually let out more of that character.

I'll admit DS9 had some bad episodes. Take Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang: It was an amusing episdoe but my big problem with it was Sisko's characterization. The writers draw from Far Beyond the Stars and the racism factor to make Sisko a sourpuss in this episode. It just didn't seem to fit. Why didn't they ever bring up the racism thing before? That's just my opinion though.

But DS9 only had a handful of these types of episodes where continutiy was a little off, or characterization seemed a little bit wrong, but for Voyager it seemed to be every other episode.

Trek critic/reviewer Tim Lynch speculated that Sisko's complaints about the inaccurate Vegas setting were actually Avery Brooks', and that the creators were throwing a bone to Black History Month (since this episode aired on February 27--at least in the New York area).

I think we've grown to love DS9 because it's different, and wants to be different from the other series. For a start, it's set mostly on a space station (or a short to medium-range starship, but that's pushing it), and there's a wide variety of aliens to look at - a non-Trekker friend of mine once commented that she loved DS9 just because of seeing all those wild and wacky aliens at Quark's! The stationary setting (please pardon the unintentional pun) allowed a focus on other topics, away from the Seek Out New Life etc. motif, and the background of previous occupation, war, and sitting on the edge of a whole new frontier allowed for some interesting stories which, while not strictly the Roddenberry brand, made for good television in places. And fine characterisation, if not acting, was the order of the day with DS9, in episodes that on TNG would be considered "bottle shows". And the battle scenes weren't too bad either, naturally! (By the way, in case anyone wants to make comparisons between Babylon 5's battle scenes and the, let's just say, inevitable big battles in DS9, let me momentarily defend DS9 by saying that wars do exist in the Trek universe - it's not until particularly DS9 that we are shown them in its graphic detail.)
In short, a true sequel to The Next Generation, which serves to add to the Trek universe and not detract from it. Much.

Voyager, I feel, is more of a "people want a starship travelling the cosmos, seeking out new life etc. etc., not people standing still waiting for things to happen" sort of series. I can understand what they were trying to get at: the concensus of the non-DS9 fans who pine for the return of the Roddenberry brand is that "DS9 is the worst of the Trek series" and that Voyager was trying to recapture the spirit of the original series and TNG. Or, to put it another way, to milk the tried-and-tested formula for all its worth because that's what the fans want and that's what our studio needs to become even bigger. OK, so it's trying to be original by putting in a "let's find our way home" manner, but such storylines need forward planning - how will they get home? Will the finale be planned in advance a la Babylon 5, or will they make it up as they go along, a la DS9 or perhaps (more appropriately) Quantum Leap? (Sorry, guys, I know how touchy all the DS9 fans - me included - are about this, but it had to be said, and not much can be done about it now that both shows are over. ) Anyway, where was I? Oh yes - the need to return to the Seek Out New Life etc. attitude. We've already had that, and there was always the risk that things would turn out badly if not done properly. As a result, while some of the stories were fine and there were some good characterisation episodes - Riddles springs to mind - many of the antics reminded me a lot of "Friends" in space, minus the laughter track. And the decision to introduce Seven of Nine - my namesake - to the show.... well let's just say that's another topic for another day and leave it at that, shall we?
In short, a good attempt to bring back the spirit of TOS and TNG, but we've seen it all before, and it's been done better.

DS9 was the last great Trek series!
I'm not holding any hope for Enterprise, I admit.
Voyager is the worst of the 4(soon to be 5) shows for 2 basic reasons:
1. Its format is so d@mn constricting. Because they have 'to get home' the show was unable to have the same intriguing storylines the other 3 shows had. Berman & Braga knew this which is why the show had them anyway, logic be d@mned.
2. Kate Mulgrew's Janeway. She was fine in the 1st season; however, by the mid-2nd season, she began jumping on her soapbox way too often("I'll destroy this ship before I turn any part of it over to the Kazon"-UGH!).
The fact that she didn't ask Q to send them home after saving him(& the Continuum) in "The Q & the Grey" proved this point conclusively(let me guess, she would've considered that to be a bribe as well).
As a result, she was less effective a character than Kirk, Picard, & Sisko. The viewer also couldn't take her seriously. Even when the other 3 Trek captains did things we didn't agree with, we could still take them seriously.

The thing that gets me is that Voyager could have been great. Over the course of seven years, DS9 introduced us to how many supporting characters? Just to name a few: Garak, Nog, Rom, Weyoun, Dukat, Damar, Ziyal, Vic, Morn, Martok, etc etc. And they were all great characters. And by the end of the 7th season, it was like we the viewers knew them. On a show like Voyager, a show where crewmembers won't be replaced, we should have known all 150 of them. We should have known which ones were Maquis, which were Starfleet, which cared about getting home and which didn't. And what did we get for supporting charaters on Voyager? Seska, a cartoon villian. Naomi Wildman, who didn't give much to the show at all. Joe Carey, forgotten for years and killed for nothing. Et cetera. And some of the main characters seemed like they were only supporting cast members! Chakotay's character has all kinds of potential. So does Harry Kim. Tuvok could have been much more than your typical drab Vulcan and B'elanna could have been much more than your average angst-ridden human-klingon hybrid.

The show itself seemed to care not a whit for established continuity, nor were there any attempts at story arcs. Voyager seemed to be moving along as if they didn't really care about getting home because they almost seemed to know that miraculously, in year 7, they'd make it. Imagine that! And Voyager did terrible things to a variety of great alien races. The Borg, the Klingons, even the Ferengi, went from being well-developed to being cartoon caricatures. But the potential was there- the potential for incredible story telling and amazing television. For example, imagine if Equinox had been a six episode arc in which we really get to know the Equinox crew before having to do battle with them. Imagine if Lon Suder (who?) had actually been a developed character before he became a deranged killer. Imagine if battling the Borg resulted in massive casualties and one of the saddest (in emotional terms) episodes of Trek history. The Delta Quadrant was definitely not as Q described it in "Q Who." Wasn't it supposed to be "treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross... but not for the timid"?
What it boils down to for me is that while DS9 is the shining epitome of what Trek at its best really is, Voyager is more like a turd falling into a Ming vase. Such beauty so carelessly marred...

The writer/producers of DS9 cared more about their show, over the last few seasons of Voyager the writing staff turnover was considerable. This lack of writing of continuity really hurt the already weak Voyager. How much could Braga care for 'his' show when left at the end of season six to develop Enterprise, leaving before the series final season?

Rick Berman has used the term 'formula' when describing Trek stories, DS9 was anything but formulaic, while Voyager took very few risks with their stories or characters. So Berman was right when he used this term when describing Voyager and that's why it was so disappointing.

Love it or hate it DS9 was made with vision and passion, Voyager was not and it showed.

D.W., with all the disagreeing we've been doing on the BoBW board, I feels good to say I agree with you 100% here!
---
---
---
---
---
---
Okay, two small points.

There was one attempt at a story arc, during the second season "Paris is losing it" storyline running from Threshold to Investigations.

As for Q's description of the area of space in Q Who, we don't know if it was the Delta Quadrant. It was only 7,000 light years from the Enterprise's previous position. Coulda been the D-Quad, could've been some other area. It certainly wasn't Borg space, since Borg space spans from just 4,000 to 14,000 light years away from the Ocampan system. (pick, pick, pick)

But hey, I still agree with the spirit of your post!

"There was one attempt at a story arc, during the second season "Paris is losing it" storyline running from Threshold to Investigations."

-- Now raise your hands, how many of us really liked that and wanted to see more?

MEMEME!

Yeah, I liked that arc. It wasn't a very big one, but it gave background to the character. I wish I could've seen more.

Oh OK then. The Paris-gets-in-"trouble" arc in Season 2 was probably the one original and daring thing Voyager did, and to its credit, being a relatively new show at the time, it could afford to take those risks and get away with it.

But I still stand by what I posted above.

Hmmmm there doesn't seem to be anyone prepared to stand up and be counted on the Voyager bench. I would be, but I know (even just from reading the previous posts) how many people would disagree with me, and even I would have to agree that most of the opinions already stated about character arcs, plot developments etc are perfectly valid. However, personally I found Voyager more entertaining to watch - simple as that. I can watch DS9 at any time and like it because I like it, but VOY just gives me that little bit more. Don't flame me, as I said, I am in agreement with most of what has already been said, I'm just trying to redress the balance in this "Argument" a little!

I had no intention of flaming you, Anon, even if you didn't agree with us. You have every right to your opinion.

I am curious, though. Could you tell us what was that "bit more" that you feel Voyager had? Was it the action scenes? The Captain? I'm just curious.

Well Luigi, as I said, I found it more entertaining to watch than DS9, most likely because Voyager doesn't, or rather didn't, take itself too seriously, it is like "Light Relief" Trek. It maybe also influenced by the fact that I watched Voyager right from the start, but didn't watch DS9 until the start of the second season so found it harder to initially get into.

As for the Captain, well no, I was more of a Kes fan personally, even more so than Seven.

Basically, even though I enjoy watching TNG and DS9 because I like Trek as a whole, Voyager (with a few exception episodes of course) just wins it for me.

Sorry

Hey, Anon,

I'm the Voyager defender (actually DS9 attacker -- I refuse to defend the undefesable.) and I liberally use "". I can start my own fights, thanks.

Luigi, I'm not anon, but he (or she) has a point. We can name extremely horrible eps at eachother until dawn but my argument comes down Move Along Home (or whatever that ep was called) has got to be the worst episode in Star Trek history. (Yeah, brother!) Yes DS9 also had the best episode with Sisko betraying everything he stood for (you I'm sure will provide the title) but it also had Profit and Lace. Anyone care to defend those episodes?

Anyone want to explain away how DS9 created problems for the movies? For all its faults (and there are so many) Voyager did not infect anything else. Why is the flag ship off on a diplomatic mission when there is a war to be fought? DS9 caused that problem, not VOY.

Why is Worf back on board in that $tupid movie with the Sona and acting as head of security? VOY did not raise that question, DS9 did.

William Berry: Anyone care to defend those episodes?
Luigi Novi: I found Move Along Home very entertaining, but that's not the point. The point that people have made on this board is that DS9 was far better written as a whole, not that each show didn't have good and bad eps.

William Berry: Anyone want to explain away how DS9 created problems for the movies?...DS9 caused [those] problem[s], not VOY.
Luigi Novi: No, it's neither. The movie had those nits in its own script. You tried this before, William and I don't buy your selective chronology.

By your assertion, the DS9 writers wrote the war storyline far in advance, and then when Michael Piller wrote ST Insurrection, it was DS9 that caused it problems? Uh, no, it's the other way around. It is ridiculous to say that the DS9 writers don't have the right to make whatever plotlines they want because the writers of FUTURE movies might not write those movies with plots that are consistent with that premise. The fault is Insurrection's, not DS9's. No one put a gun to Michael Piller's head and FORCED him to make the Enterprise's mission a diplomatic one, or have Worf act as COS.

The prevailing common sense is that writers should acknowledge established chronology. That means they should acknowledge that which is already established. Twisting this around to pin the blame on DS9 is absurd. They laid claim to putting the Federation at war with the Dominion YEARS BEFORE Insurrection was even conceived, and it is Michael Piller who should've made sure the plot of Insurrection reflected this.

Moreover, the existence of two nits in that movie is hardly grounds to condemn the entire movie, MUCH LESS DS9.

Luigi,

You were wrong about that before and you are wrong again. Take out DS9 and the war and there is no problem with Insurrection. That is the end of my sentence. How many paragraphs do you have to use to try and justify it? (BTW, my chronology is not selective. Any star dates be damned. Was Worf on supposedly stationed DS9? Why was the Enterprise going on that diplomatic mission? Sorry I gave you two more paragraphs.)

Oh, two nits that were caused by DS9, and not the much despised VOY. Since you've proven you don't read other peoples posts, that was a major point of mine. Nits in other stories traceable to the series: DS9=2 VOY=0

This is not to defend Voyager. (On that we are practically one, brother.)

Well, then we can take out "Space Seed" and all the Eugenics War nits go away too...

I think you have a bad premise there Blue.

Voyager strikes me as a cartoon-like series - no matter what happens, who gets hurt, dies even, it all gets reset by the next week.

And I LOVED Voyager when it first started, possibly because of the female captain (which I had been waiting for since being an sf fan in childhood). I just think it didn't develop beyond the first couple of years, and I hate the later years all the more because I was hoping it would expand somehow, while it in fact became a kind of soap opera in space.

And I kept watching in case I missed something good!

I hate to disagree with you, ScottN, but you're sarcastic example is right. Personally I would not cut out space seed and the second movie, but you are right. If you take out space seed the eugenics wars nits do go away. (Other than the eugenics wars not happening in reality I don't know what the nits are. Enlighten me if you can think of an example that does not relate to what was established in space seed.))

The premise leads to conclusions that are correct. What was the point you were trying to make?

Blue, Future's End(VOY). It's 1996, there's absolutely no sign of the Eugenics Wars going on.

Sheesh, ever wish you never mentioned something!

I have no wish to bash DS9 - far from it. It has its moments of goodness and badness, (although I am sure some wouldn't quite agree with that!)

Alice - I was also hoping that the latter seasons of Voyager would expand, and be more creative, and was torn as to whether I ever wanted them to get home or not. I hoped that once regular contact was being made with Earth that there would be some interesting material forthcoming, but I think they wasted a lot of opportunities.

Ho hum, never mind, I'm enjoying Enterprise for what it is at the moment and re-runs of VOY and DS9 are keeping me vaguely sane.

Anon

I'm afraid the ending of Voyager has put me off watching Enterprise - what I have seen hasn't impressed me much. Shame too, as I do like Scott Bakula, but can't stand the Vulcan lady. I keep sane by watching the Simpsons....

But back to the subject in hand...

ScottN,

Is the lack of eugenics wars nit caused by Futures End or by reality? Do you watch other Trek shows and say, "Hey wait a minute! There was no eugenics war in 1996 L.A. in Futures End!" or do you say, "Hey, wait a minute, I don't remember reading about Khan in Newsweek." Is there a nit they created on VOY (like they created the Dominion war on DS9)?

Anon,

Relax, we don't bite (much). Seriously, you just provided the excuse for me to get several DS9ers riled up. It's not your fault they are wrong. (Do you get the idea from the "" that I don't take a TV show too seriously? With few exceptions that is the case for everyone here. Luigi might go to twelve paragraphs about Sisko's footwear but he's really quite sane and will not hurt or insult you.)

LOL I know that I have scrolled through many of Luigi's posts before Just kidding Luigi, I find much of what you say thoughful and informative (hence the smile.)

I sometimes just kick myself that I never think of half of what most people here do, but then in a way I feel glad that I don't because I think it would spoil my enjoyment at the time I was watching. I try not to take TV shows too seriously too, but since first coming here nearly a year ago I have thought more about things as I watch (especially Trek, and VOY which was one of my favourites whilst it was running)

Well, I suppose if we got a few DS9ers riled then it was maybe all worth while.


Alice, sorry to hear you're not enjoying ENT, I do like most of it. I just want there to be a really good season finale now.

Peace, and Voyager Rules!

Blue Berry: Take out DS9 and the war and there is no problem with Insurrection.
Luigi Novi: I disagree. Insurrection was poorly written, and its problems, as a movie, have nothing to do with DS9. Making the Enterprise’s mission in the movie a diplomatic one, and having Worf act as C.O.S. were not integral to the plot. It is the manner in which Rick Berman and Michael Piller wrote that movie’s script that caused those two nits to appear, not a storyline from another show that was laid down long in advance.

Blue Berry: BTW, my chronology is not selective.
Luigi Novi: Then why are not holding Michael Piller responsible for writing those two nits into that movie, rather than the writers of a storyline that arguably was conceived when DS9 was first created? If I say Voyager is in point X in space, and can travel at speed Y, and then a future writer of an episode years later screws up the ship’s distance through some dialogue or episode plot, you’re saying it’s that first writer who screwed up. Sorry, but that makes no sense. If you write something that clearly contradicts something far earlier in the chronology, it is that latter story that is creating the contradiction, not the earlier one.

Blue Berry: Any star dates be damned.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about internal chronology (And it’s also irrelevant, as there were no stardates in the movie), we’re talking about the external chronology of which storyline came first. The war storyline was written in advance, and aired in advance. Therefore, it was Piller and Berman’s job to make sure the movie reflected the fact that the Federation was at war, not the DS9 writer’s prohibition from writing a storyline that would be inconsistent with the Enterprise being on a diplomatic mission in a movie years later.

Blue Berry: Was Worf on supposedly stationed DS9? Why was the Enterprise going on that diplomatic mission?
Luigi Novi: Right. And who wrote those two plot points? Michael Piller, who wrote the screenplay for Insurrection. (Rick Berman and Piller wrote the story, but I don’t know if those two points were specifically in the story, or if Berman originated them.)

Blue Berry: Oh, two nits that were caused by DS9, and not the much despised VOY.
Luigi Novi: Two nits in that movie were caused by that movie, period. The DS9 writers are not responsible for nits a future writer makes in a movie released a year or two after a DS9 storyline is written and aired. Using this same Astroturf logic, you could say every single Changed Premise-type nit is caused not by the latter episode or movie that contradicts a former one, but by the writer of that former one, who should’ve not only somehow "anticipated" what the plot of a future episode or movie would’ve been, and been obligated to make sure his episode that came first was consistent with it, which is absurd.

Blue Berry: Since you've proven you don't read other peoples posts, that was a major point of mine.
Luigi Novi: I have proven no such thing, and in point of fact, I most certainly do read other’s posts.

Blue Berry: Luigi might go to twelve paragraphs about Sisko's footwear but he's really quite sane..
Luigi Novi: Take that back!!

Luigi,

You have proven a failure to read my posts. (Remember partially deaf lurker?) I assumed it was general. I apologize if it is just my posts you ignore.

I thought you meant internal chronology. You are more involved with that than I am. As for external chronolgy I'm sorry that as a nitpicker I don't deal with the real world. If you insist on something prior to DS9 try Kirk's, "The age of the space wars is past." I forget the ep., but I've seen the quote floating around here. If the war was central to DS9 when it was thought of then DS9 as a whole should never have happened. A war violates the "better humanity in a better universe" feel of all Trek.

My point stands. I can write my objection in a sentance. Your attempt to rebut it takes paragraphs. Since you bring up reality I'll ask what is simpler a solar centered system with eliptical orbits or an earth centered one with epicycles?

I had to scroll up and assumed I was clear that I meant meant the war related nits in Insurrection. I wasn't. There are plenty of other reasons to dislike that movie.

Luigi is sane! Luigi is sane! :p

Blue Berry: You have proven a failure to read my posts.
Luigi Novi: I've done no such thing. I've read your posts, and I'm pretty sure I read PDL's as well.

Blue Berry: As for external chronolgy I'm sorry that as a nitpicker I don't deal with the real world.
Luigi Novi: Sorry, but I never bought that refrain. Reality is the reference point for all nitpicking. If Phil points out that light from a supernova reaches the Enterprise ini only 50 seconds, when the ship is far more than 50 light seconds away, that nit requires knowing the speed of light, which Phil points out, but wasn't established in the episode. Where exactly is 186,272 ml/sec the speed of light? Oh, in REAL LIFE, you say? "Sorry, but we don't deal in reality." Therefore, that nit isn't a nit.

Blue Berry: If you insist on something prior to DS9 try Kirk's, "The age of the space wars is past." If the war was central to DS9 when it was thought of then DS9 as a whole should never have happened. A war violates the "better humanity in a better universe" feel of all Trek.
Luigi Novi: I say it doesn't. A war is a legitimate way of depicting how the Federation reacts to an aggressor like the Dominion in a way that had never been done in a long-term storyline before. Should the Federation have sat by and let the Dominion take over the Alpha Quadrant? Frankly, I'm not impressed by assertions by people who think they know what Gene Roddenberry's vision was better than he did. His vision changed numerous times over the years, and he approved DS9's concept before his death.

Blue Berry: My point stands. I can write my objection in a sentance. Your attempt to rebut it takes paragraphs.
Luigi Novi: So what? I'm thorough. A falsehood is easy to make in a sentence. An explanation as to why it's built on faulty reasoning isn't.

Blue Berry: I had to scroll up and assumed I was clear that I meant meant the war related nits in Insurrection.
Luigi Novi: Ah, so NOW you're saying that those nits are related to DS9! Before, you were saying that DS9 CAUSED them, or was RESPONSIBLE for them. Hmmm....I wonder how many sentences it takes to backpedal?

Luigi,


Luigi Novi: Ah, so NOW you're saying that those nits are related to DS9! Before, you were saying that DS9 CAUSED them, or was RESPONSIBLE for them. Hmmm....I wonder how many sentences it takes to backpedal?

I'm sorry my use of synonyms confused you. The shades are different, but both are blue. DS9 was responsible for them; DS9 did cause them; those nits are related to DS9. Which of those statements is completely different in relating those nits to DS9? (Never mind their validity for now, just tell me which is completely different from the others.) Does that exercise clear it up for you?

Luigi Novi: So what? I'm thorough. A falsehood is easy to make in a sentence. An explanation as to why it's built on faulty reasoning isn't.

Yeah, you are thorough. The geocentric model with 787 epicycles for Mars was thorough too. Your point? It takes longer to explain a falsehood because details must constantly be added. I forgot the short equation Copernicus (or was it Newton?) used to describe elliptical orbits. I'm guessing it is shorter that any epicycle equivalent.

In any event, if we remove DS9 those two nits are not there. I can't think of anything in VOY that is the similar. (Yes, VOY wussified Q and the Borg [The latter started with the movie First Contact IMO, BTW] and was all around horrible, but the damage was limited to VOY. [Part of that is because there has not been a movie where Q or the Borg are back as their bad selves, but I'm digressing.])

Look at the first sentence. Challenge the validity of that sentence. Without more support than an armored division, you can't. That sentence is my argument. Convince me it is false, and you win. In all your posts you have never had a sentence like if we remove DS9 those two nits are still there because...

I don't think you can do that. Nothing personal, I don't think anyone can do that. (Josh G., you are welcome to try.)

Tell you what. I'll concede all the other points if you respond to heart of my argument.

OK, let's take a minute.

First of all, who says that the Ent-E is the flagship? It was established somewhere that the D is, but maybe some other ship is now (the Sovereign, for example?).

Second, the war wasn't all continuous battles. If you recall, they had time to go play baseball, etc... So maybe the Ent-E was on a diplomatic mission between battles? Remember, someone (I think it was Picard) complained that they wouldn't normally do this, but they needed allies?

Also, Blue, I believe you're wrong. The war arc started before "Insurrection" began production. Therefore it is Insurrection's responsibility to conform to established canon.

Further example of my second point: Worf, Dax, Bashir, Leeta, and Quark have time to go to Risa for a vacation. It's established that the Federation is on a war footing at that point, that's the whole point of the episode.

Mind if I jump in, gentlemen?

>DS9 was responsible for them; DS9 did cause them; those nits are related to DS9. Which of those statements is completely different in relating those nits to DS9?
-Blue Berry

The third is completely different. Being related to and being responsible for are two completely different concepts. Also, those nits relate to Insurrection. By your reasoning, isn't Insurrection responsible for them as well?

>Look at the first sentence. Challenge the validity of that sentence. Without more support than an armored division, you can't. That sentence is my argument. Convince me it is false, and you win. In all your posts you have never had a sentence like if we remove DS9 those two nits are still there because...
-Blue Berry

No one can challange the validity of that statement. However, the reasoning that you are using to equate that to "responsible for" is what seems to be the issue. After all, if you remove Insurrection, those two nits disappear as well. How does DS9 bear responsibility? If I hit someone with my car, can I reasonably blame them for the accident because, "If he wouldn't have been there, it wouldn't have happened"?

Heck, remove TOS, and many of those pesky Enterprise continuity nits disappear. Are those nits TOS's fault?

>No one can challange the validity of that statement.
-Dustin Westfall

That should read "No one is challenging the validity of that statement."

ScottN,

You are right. The E may be just a ship of the line. You are right that during the war people went on vacation, etc. You have un-nitted one nit. We still have Worf becoming COS in Insurrection. (Bad movie, I hope people can realize I'm not defending it.)

Dustin,

I see your point on the wording. Someone can be related to a murder without being a murderer. I apologize for being careless in my wording.

Heck, remove TOS, and many of those pesky Enterprise continuity nits disappear.

Yes, it does disappear. I personally would keep TOS, but if we remove TOS then they can have two-way conversations and it is OK when Vulcan’s lie.

Is it TOS's fault? Think about it. If it didn't exist there would be no nit. (I'm not absolving Enterprise since if it didn't exist there would also be no nits.)

The analogy of a pedestrian with no other details holds true. If you patently waited while many crossed during a walk signal, the light turned green, you checked to be sure they were done, and proceeded to hit the guy running from behind a building. Who is at fault? (Not legally. [Various states have various right of way laws.]) If you sped drunkenly down the street and hit the school crossing guard. Who is at fault? (Again, not legally but actually.)

The actual answer in both is "both parties" because it takes two to have a collision. Legally (or morally) in the first one it is the pedestrian and in the second it is the driver.

Finally I want to help you guys write your posts. (Gee, ain't I nice? It's not a Greek gift or anything.) ScottN unnited one nit, so you’ll have to cut and paste this revised version.

If we remove DS9 that nit is still there because

OK, now finish the sentence.

Is it TOS's fault? Think about it. If it didn't exist there would be no nit. (I'm not absolving Enterprise since if it didn't exist there would also be no nits.)

Think about it, though. If TOS didn't exist then Enterprise wouldn't exist.

I can see how "both parties" can be responsible for a continuity nit. I usually put the blame on the later fact that contradicts a fact established earlier, but I make exceptions in cases where the first fact was unreasonable to begin with. For example, when Space Seed says the Eugenics Wars were in 1996, I blame the writers of that episode for later chronology nits, because 1996 was a fairly unreasonable date to set forth. Of course, I can still blame the writers of Doctor Bashir, I Presume? for saying the Eugenics Wars were 200 years earlier (the late 22nd century!), because the writers absent-mindedly used the wrong number. They based it on Khan's statement in TWOK about having been a "prince" on Earth "200 years ago". Now, that itself is a nit, being a contradiction of Space Seed, but that one doesn't bother me. In my opinion, it fixes the unreasonable date Space Seed gave. Boy, am I rambling! Did I have a point to make? Oh yeah, I think sometimes you can blame the earlier series/episode for a continuity nit, and sometimes you can blame the later series/episode. It depends on whose facts are more reasonable.

I agree with that, Duke. For example, it is unreasonable that the Romulans had no warp drive until after Balance of Terror. If Enterprise were to give the Romulans warp drive, it creates a contradiction but removes a big nit. It's not perfect, but I can live with that.

After reading this board and all the arguments in Luigi Novi vs. Blue Berry. I have this to say:

LUIGI IS RIGHT!!
That cannot be questioned. The Deep Space Nine storyline about the war was made prior to Insurrection. Heck, at the time of First Contact it was obvious that the Federation was facing a war. The nits were caused by the script of Insurrection (which, in my opinion, would have been better as a made for TV movie) when the writers refused to acknowledge the Federation was at war. Saying that there is no mention of the war in Insurrection in DS9s fault is dumb.

Blue Berry: I'm sorry my use of synonyms confused you.
Luigi Novi: You didn’t use synonyms. You used "related to" and "responsible for" interchangeably. One is accurate. The other is not. They are not synonymous.

Blue Berry: DS9 was responsible for them; DS9 did cause them.
Luigi Novi: No, it did not. Insurrection caused them. Any reasonable person not operating from some bias like yours, Berry, will agree that pointing out continuity contradictions follows a LINEAR CHRONOLOGY. If something is written in season 1, a premise in season 7 that contradicts it is the fault of the person who wrote that SECOND premise, not the writer of the first.
---How can you fault the DS9 writers, when they could have no idea that a movie would be made years later with the Enterprise on a diplomatic mission and Worf acting as C.O.S., and when the plot of Insurrection didn’t require those premises? The writers of Insurrection should’ve wrote that script to conform the current events going on in the Alpha Quadrant, not the other way around. There’s no way the DS9 guys could’ve written their show to conform to movie not yet conceived, nor reason they should have, since their war storyline was a far bolder experiment and yielded episode stories much better than Insurrection anyway.

Blue Berry: those nits are related to DS9. Which of those statements is completely different in relating those nits to DS9? (Never mind their validity for now, just tell me which is completely different from the others.)
Luigi Novi: "Relating to" and "Responsible for" are different.

Blue Berry: It takes longer to explain a falsehood because details must constantly be added.
Luigi Novi: First, it takes longer to explain a falsehood because people who put forward arguments such as this one of yours resort to Astroturf logic, which has to be dissected intelligently. Second, the use of either a sentence or a paragraph to argue our respective points is wholly irrelevant to the validity of those points, and seems more like an attempt to shift the focus of the discussion from the true topic to one about the speaker. Succinctness is one thing. It is not the only thing.

Blue Berry: In any event, if we remove DS9 those two nits are not there.
Luigi Novi: Which has absolutely nothing to do with responsibility. Writing a movie script that conforms to current events in the A-Quad is more than doable. Scuttling plans for a (mostly) well-written storyline inherent to a TV series’ 7-year arc in order to make it easier to write a mediocre movie years down the road that no one has ever even conceived is impossible and as an argument unintelligible. Besides, you can make the same argument for any episode, movie or series.

Blue Berry: I can't think of anything in VOY that is the similar.
Luigi Novi: Which, is hardly the best or most relevant criteria in judging the quality of both shows’ writing. It also doesn't make DS9 responsible for Insurrection's nits.
---But if you insist: Tuvok said in Scorpion partI(VOY) that the Breen use organic ships like Species 8472, but when we first saw one at the end of Penumbra(DS9), it didn’t look it all. Using your logic, this nit was Voyager’s fault. In fact, it was DS9’s, or specifically, the designer of that ship. Notice how I say this despite the fact that I think DS9 was a far superior show than Voyager, and that this predisposition doesn’t cause me to blame Voyager for that nit, as you do DS9 for the Insurrection nit.

Blue Berry: (Yes, VOY wussified Q and the Borg [The latter started with the movie First Contact IMO, BTW] and was all around horrible, but the damage was limited to VOY. [Part of that is because there has not been a movie where Q or the Borg are back as their bad selves, but I'm digressing.])
Luigi Novi: And if they HAD made such a movie, one that contradicted premises in Voyager, it would’ve been that writer’s fault for not conforming to established premises, not Voyager.

Blue Berry: Look at the first sentence. Challenge the validity of that sentence. Without more support than an armored division, you can't. That sentence is my argument. Convince me it is false, and you win. In all your posts you have never had a sentence like if we remove DS9 those two nits are still there because...
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall saying I disagree with that statement. No one said that those nits wouldn’t be there without DS9, or that ANY NIT can be negated by removing the episode or movie establishing the PRIOR premise. (If we remove Sins of the Father(TNG), then Gowron’s statement in Rightful Heir(TNG) that there was no Emperor at the time of Mogh’s death is negated. If we remove Day of the Dove(TOS), the nit surrounding the existence of a Klingon devil in Devil’s Due(TNG) is negated, etc., etc., and so forth.) What I argue is that that doesn’t mean that DS9 is AT FAULT. That doesn’t mean the PRIOR episode is at fault. It’s the LATTER one that is. DS9 established the war story first. Insurrection came after, and didn’t require those contradicting premises. The writer of Insurrection, therefore was at fault. You can get rid of either the series or that movie to remove the nit. You simply choose to focus on the series because you’re biased against it.

In a whimsical game of "What if?", choosing which story to focus on to remove that nit is arbitrary, and for you, Berry, a matter of your personal taste. In pointing out flaws in writing, it is not.

Luigi,

Try this Astroturf. In any collision there must be two particles. In any continuity nit there must be two contradictory statements. Without either (even the first one) the continuity nit does not exist.

I've just reread
Blue Berry: I can't think of anything in VOY that is the similar.
Luigi Novi: Which, is hardly the best or most relevant criteria in judging the quality of both shows’ writing. . Maybe you should look at the board title. I'm comparing it to VOY because Family Ties is not mentioned (although Urkel and Neelix...)


You see a continuity error in Scorpion and Penumbra that you blame DS9 for? If Scorpion part 2 didn't exist would it be OK? If Penumbra didn't exist would it be OK? (Does it take two to Tango?)

Ok, you say the earlier is never at fault. (Actually, you didn't say never, I'm summarizing What I argue is that that doesn’t mean that DS9 is AT FAULT. That doesn’t mean the PRIOR episode is at fault. It’s the LATTER one that is. Correct my simplification.) TOS established the Teletype noise in the background of the computer and flashing yellow lights instead of intelligible displays. Is Enterprise at fault for violating continuity by not making the Teletype noise whenever Archer records a log entry and asks the computer to pause? (It doesn't even tell him it is working!) Even though that was established forty years or so prior to Enterprise I don’t blame the LATTER show

Since you just ignored it, I'll ask yet again for you to complete this sentence:
If we remove DS9 that nit is still there because... (Incase you are wondering why it changed, ScottN unitted one nit.)

God you are so missing the point!!!

Blue Berry: Try this Astroturf. In any collision there must be two particles. In any continuity nit there must be two contradictory statements. Without either (even the first one) the continuity nit does not exist.
Luigi Novi: Which is fine, unless you’re talking about FAULT.

No one is debating your statement, and your use of generic phrases like "pertains to" or "relates to" are vague as to culpability. But when are talking about culpability, there isn’t any "even the first one." It is the second, because the second writer had a first premise to be consistent with. The first writer did NOT. You are simply FOCUSING on the first one because of your bias against that show.

Blue Berry: You see a continuity error in Scorpion and Penumbra that you blame DS9 for? If Scorpion part 2 didn't exist would it be OK? If Penumbra didn't exist would it be OK? (Does it take two to Tango?)
Luigi Novi: See above answer. The second writer is at fault.

Blue Berry: Ok, you say the earlier is never at fault. (Actually, you didn't say never, I'm summarizing What I argue is that that doesn’t mean that DS9 is AT FAULT. That doesn’t mean the PRIOR episode is at fault. It’s the LATTER one that is. Correct my simplification.)
Luigi Novi: My understanding about nitpicking (and this is only my generalized viewpoint) is that when we point a changed premise nit, and when we talk about who’s at fault for that nit, we are more or less saying (in a tongue and cheek fashion) that the creators screwed up. This is because the writer of the second story didn’t acknowledge, double check or research the prior material. How exactly can the first writer be at fault if his material contradicts something written later on in the future?

This, of course, is as opposed to a nit stemming from a scientific impossibility (Geordi and Ro being able to see, breathe and not fall through the floor in The Next Phase(TNG)), which cannot be avoided if the story is to be told, or a nit stemming from a development in current events that makes a premise impossible (the longevity of Trek into the 1990’s making the Eugenics Wars something that never happened in real life, the fact that Leningrad, which is mentioned in I, Mudd(TOS) and ST IV, ceased to exist in the 1990s, etc.), which is impossible for a writer to foresee.

Blue Berry: TOS established the Teletype noise in the background of the computer and flashing yellow lights instead of intelligible displays. Is Enterprise at fault for violating continuity by not making the Teletype noise whenever Archer records a log entry and asks the computer to pause?
Luigi Novi: No, because Enterprise doesn’t take place during the same time period, and we can explain this by speculating that this is simply a change that by Kirk’s time.

However, Enterprise most certainly is at fault when it clearly contradicts things established in the prior four series, such as the disastrousness of Human-Klingon first contact, the number of starships Enterprise, etc. (Although some may argue the Temporal Cold War can explain all such nits.) If a nit contradicts TOS, cannot be reasonably explained, and/or is not integral to the episode’s plot, it is Enterprise’s fault.

Blue Berry: (It doesn't even tell him it is working!) Even though that was established forty years or so prior to Enterprise I don’t blame the LATTER show
Luigi Novi: So you want to blame the writers of TOS because they should’ve forseen what the writers of ENT would’ve done instead? That makes absolutely no sense.

Blue Berry: Since you just ignored it, I'll ask yet again for you to complete this sentence:

If we remove DS9 that nit is still there because...
Luigi Novi: Since you ignored my last response to one of your statements regarding that sentence above, I’ll cut and paste it here.

Luigi Novi: I don’t recall saying I disagree with that statement. No one said that those nits wouldn’t be there without DS9, or that ANY NIT can be negated by removing the episode or movie establishing the PRIOR premise. (If we remove Sins of the Father(TNG), then Gowron’s statement in Rightful Heir(TNG) that there was no Emperor at the time of Mogh’s death is negated. If we remove Day of the Dove(TOS), the nit surrounding the existence of a Klingon devil in Devil’s Due(TNG) is negated, etc., etc., and so forth.) What I argue is that that doesn’t mean that DS9 is AT FAULT. That doesn’t mean the PRIOR episode is at fault. It’s the LATTER one that is. DS9 established the war story first. Insurrection came after, and didn’t require those contradicting premises. The writer of Insurrection, therefore was at fault. You can get rid of either the series or that movie to remove the nit. You simply choose to focus on the series because you’re biased against it.

In a whimsical game of "What if?", choosing which story to focus on to remove that nit is arbitrary, and for you, Berry, a matter of your personal taste. In pointing out flaws in writing, it is not.

Maybe you should look at the board title. I'm comparing it to VOY because Family Ties is not mentioned (although Urkel and Neelix...) - Blue Berry

The show with Urkel was called "Family Matters". "Family Ties was the 80's show that launched Michael J. Fox's career.

So, according to your thinking, Blue Berry, is this mistake the fault of the creators of "Family Matters", for not calling their show "Family Ties"? Or is it the fault of the creators of "Family Ties" for not anticipating that ten years later, someone would create a show with a similar title that would result in your being confused ten years after that?

Because it clearly wasn't your mistake.

Dear Darth,

I stand corrected. Unlike you I have often admitted when I'm wrong. (I'm not wrong,Luigi.) (Read this board for examples. {If you can not be bothered to actually read, look at my reply to Dustin Westfall and ScottN.]) Ever confuse titles of sitcoms (in a joke no less), Sarcasm?

Of course I have. I was just noting the fallacy of your argument that the person who made a point of fact ("Family Ties" had no Urkel; DS9 established the Dominion war) first is at fault when someone later makes an assertion contrary to it afterwards.

Just as you are at fault for making the error, so are the creators/writers for Insurrection at fault for their discrepency.

And you imply you know an awful lot about me (as if I post all that much here). Find me one instance where I was wrong and didn't admit it.

Mr. Sarcasm,

Can I call you Darth? I've got better things to do than look up all your one or two line posts that pick on someone innocently making a $tupid error that does not negate their point at all.

Luigi,

The first one is never at fault for a nit. (If you are new to this discussion, "never" is my word. I can either quote all of Luigi's post or put words in his mouth. Luigi, please correct me on the "never" if it is not an accurate interpretation of your position.)

If you hold that do feel that there is no Federation but merely UNESPA? How about the visual appearance of Klingons? (I know in the 1960's they didn't have big budgets, but you can ask the later people to preserve continuity by spending less money.)

An example that doesn't involve TOS is Odo. Wasn't there a shape shifter that Wesley had a crush on in TNG (the episode name escapes me -- as usual.) I could be wrong but in the early eps. of DS9 wasn't Odo's shape shifting ability supposed to be unique?

That one pitiful episode of TNG caused a nit in DS9, or do you blame DS9 for that? I say the fault is not of DS9, do you?

The Dauphin(TNG).

And yes, Odo's shapeshifting being unique IS a nit in DS9.

We have ample evidence, starting from The Man Trap(TOS), (though that may be psychic...), then we have Garth of Izar and the race he learned it from (Whom Gods Destroy(TOS)), and Chameleoids (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country). Then we had The Dauphin(TNG), and possibly Allegiance(TNG) (though it's not clear if the alien observers are shapeshifter or not).

So I'd say that shapeshifters are well established by the time that DS9 rolls around. So, yes, Odo's supposed uniqueness is a nit on DS9.

You can call me whatever you wish. No skin off my back. And may I suggest that if you don't have the time to look up support for your libelous allegations, then you shouldn't make them in the first place.

Of course DS9 caused the shapeshifter nit. And as ScottN pointed out, there were numerous episodes previous to it which established shapeshifting characters.

And you're absolutely right, the creators could have spent less money on make-up and made the Klingons to look exactly like TOS Klingons. But they didn't, thus the creators of TMP created a nit.

And let me see if I understand you... You expect that the creators of episodes maintain continuity with the unwritten, unimagined, unthunk stuff that is written much later (sometimes decades later)? Unless you're like Kes in Before and After, please explain to me how this is reasonable, rational, or realitic.

Blue Berry: The first one is never at fault for a nit. (If you are new to this discussion, "never" is my word. I can either quote all of Luigi's post or put words in his mouth. Luigi, please correct me on the "never" if it is not an accurate interpretation of your position.)
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure if "never" is appropriate, and I think that who’s at fault for a nit is debatable—in certain circumstances, but generally, pointing out premise contradiction should logically follow a linear chronology. Generally, if someone establishes a premise in one point in time, and someone depicts a contradicting premise at a later point in time, naturally, the nit has been created by that latter story, because that’s where the contradiction occurred. I can think of at least one situation where the creators can be at least partially held responsible for the former premise, and that would be premises that they should know will trip them up later: Betazoid lie detection, Odo supposedly not being good at duplicity, the top speed of the NX-01 Enterprise, etc. I (and probably everyone else) knew these things would trip them up eventually. Professional writers should know it easily. Generally, in most other cases, the latter writer is at fault for not conforming to the ESTABLISHED premise.

Blue Berry: If you hold that do feel that there is no Federation but merely UNESPA?
Luigi Novi: First you have to agree that a given situation is a nit. If you subsribe to a given explanation, it’s not one, and if you don’t, then it is. TOS writer Dorothy Fontana has pointed out that present-day U.S. Navy personnel use many terms when they refer to the Navy, CINCPAC, the "Silent Service," and the Pentagon. In addition, I would suggest that this could be due to both nicknames and a distribution of different divisions of the Federation, which were all eventually consolidated into Starfleet. But let’s assume that you don’t buy this explanation, and still consider it a nit.

Ep 2 Charlie X marks the first use of the agency "UESPA" (pronounced "yoo-spah.")
Ep 8 Miri "Space Central"
Ep 13 Conscience of the King "The Star Service"
Ep 19 Tomorrow is Yesterday "United Earth Space Probe Agency" (previously referred to by its acronym.)
Ep 20 Court Martial "Space Command"
Ep 23 A Taste of Armageddon "United Federation of Planets"

The first nit occurred in Miri, and then the subsequent episodes. I would exempt the last one, however, by assuming that all those prior agencies were under the authority of the Federation (though the dialogue may or may not support this.)

Blue Berry: How about the visual appearance of Klingons?
Luigi Novi: Everyone has their own explanations for this (and I’ve posted mine in the past). If you don’t buy them, then ST The Motion Picture created a nit with the first appearance of the "turtle-heads."

Blue Berry: I know in the 1960's they didn't have big budgets, but you can ask the later people to preserve continuity by spending less money.
Luigi Novi: I would favor the turtle-head look. In fact, I read somewhere that the turtle head look is the way the makeup FX creator(s) originally wanted them to look, but just didn’t have the money.

Guys, I’m not sure what you’re all talking about with respect to Odo, as I don’t ever remember any line in Emissary(DS9) stating his abilities were unique. If I’m wrong, please point it out to me. Perhaps it was stated that he himself was unique in that he was the only known member of his species, or perhaps someone was referring to his investigative objectivity, which stemmed in part from being an outsider, which to the crews of both Terok Nor and DS9 he certainly was, but not that his abilities were that unique. And if there were such an assertion made, who made it? Was it perhaps someone who was unfamiliar with the existence shapeshifters, like Kira, for example?

Blue Berry: That one pitiful episode of TNG caused a nit in DS9, or do you blame DS9 for that? I say the fault is not of DS9, do you?
Luigi Novi: Assuming what you’re asserting about that remark about Odo is correct, naturally the writer of that latter episode created it. Again, I have to ask, how can the first one create it? That presumes that writers have to somehow know what premises are going to be established by future writers of future episodes years down the line, which makes absolutely no sense. What does the fact that you think The Dauphin(TNG) was pitiful have to do with? Culpability has nothing to do with your feelings about the quality of the first story. You seem to be going up and down the Trek continuity line, and picking and choosing that which qualifies for your own personal customized continuity, which is fine, except that’s not the same thing as saying that which you don’t choose is at FAULT.

Dear Mr. Sarcasm,

I refer you to my attorney. Libel is a serious charge. Fortunately in the US truth is an absolute defense against libel. Now if you'll come out from behind your pseudonym maybe I'll take you seriously. Let the adults talk.

Luigi,

in certain circumstances -- Luigi Novi

You accused me of backpedaling, can I accuse you of it now? Any good example I can come up with is unusual circumstance that the writers should've know will create a nit. (I.E. Sophie Hawksworth's point about Romulans that have no warp capability is a nit waiting to happen.)

If you are on both sides of the issue, why argue with you? (Gee, Luigi, your no fun.) What can I use? I have to go outside of Trek. The whole dominion war concept (if you are right that DS9 was based on that, then all of DS9) is a certain circumstance if you have stories about the military (Picard’s objections noted and rightfully ignored) a war is going to affect them.

No, the Romulans lacking warp wasn't a nit waiting to happen, it was a nit, period.

If the Romulans don't have warp, how did they fight an interstellar war? How did they get to the Federation side of the Neutral Zone?

Blue Berry: You accused me of backpedaling, can I accuse you of it now?
Luigi Novi: Only if you can show where I previously used the word "never." Since I hadn't done so, there is no backpedaling. I specifically told you in my Thursday post that this was my "generalized" viewpoint, so there is no contradiction. It is important to always acknowledge possible exceptions to a rule, and that's all I did, pointing out a type of circumstance in which the writer of a primary premise--one that will have broad ramifications for the freedom of future writers—should be advised to think it through. You asked me if I was saying "never," and I merely replied "no." This is not backpedaling. It’s called an exception to a rule.

But for the most part, though, logically and chronologically, it makes no sense to say the first writer is at fault. The second writer, the one who writes a changed premise, is contradicting the established one. The first writer cannot contradict something that doesn’t exist.

Blue Berry: The whole dominion war concept (if you are right that DS9 was based on that, then all of DS9) is a certain circumstance if you have stories about the military (Picard’s objections noted and rightfully ignored) a war is going to affect them.
Luigi Novi: No. In writing a seven-year TV show, one can anticipate that future episodes may have plots that require someone duplicitous to be in the presence of Troi without them being revealed as lying, or that may require Lwaxana or Odo to be duplicitous or less than honest themselves. Phil noticed this immediately, as he pointed out in his DS9 Guide, as did I.
---By contrast, there is no reason to anticipate that a future movie would REQUIRE the Enterprise to be on a diplomatic mission. Insurrection did not require that plot point, and it could’ve been written around the Dominion War. All they needed was for Enterprise somewhere else while Data was on the Baku planet. If the creators wanted to have a movie take place during the war, it was their obligation conform that plot of that movie to that premise, which would not have been an unreasonable requirement, or wait several months to release the movie. Telling the TNG or DS9 writers they can’t ever write plots in which Lwaxana or Odo are ever duplicitous does in fact handcuff their ability to write character-oriented stories to a significant degree. Telling the writers of Insurrection that any mission the Enterprise is on in a movie during the war should be consistent with that storyline is not.

Again, you’re focusing on DS9 because of your personal bias against it, not because this reasoning of yours makes any objective sense.

You're right. Libel is a serious charge. But making false accusations with the sole purpose of disparaging someone's character (the fact that we're both using pseudonyms is immaterial) is still libel. That, my friend, is the truth. It's also an ad hominem attack (that the moderators are supposed to be monitoring).

Another fact is that I have twice now made statements with regards to the topic at hand, but you have solely responded with insults and false allegations without addressing the important matters you claim you want to discuss. Is this the adult conversation you claim you want?

But if you must know, my name is Sanford Weinstein (though my friends call me Sandy). My email address is above.

Let's talk... please. I'm really interested in what you have to say to me.

Mr. Sarcasm,

This is not a pseudonym. I am William Berry. I explain why I am using "Blue" on the Non-Sci Fi novels board / Drunken English Major Game nits. It is also in PM somewhere, but I forget where. Mr. Weinstein please find where I made an ad hominem attack upon you (not Luigi) before you impugn me. I'll scroll up, but I think I'd remember it.

While scrolling up look at the last line of your post on may 16th. In case you can't scroll up, I'll quote it for you:
Because it clearly wasn't your mistake.--Darth Sarcasm (emphasis mine)
You, sir, imply that I will not admit my error of calling Family Matters Family Ties. There is only one way to settle this. Fencing rods at forty paces. I expect to meet you at dawn upon the field of honor.

Luigi,

Replying to you takes time that I'm short of right now. (Are you relieved or disappointed?)

Oh I know you weren't backpedaling. That's why the "" was at the end of that sentence. (You were backpedaling from the word I put in your mouth. I thought the joke was clear. Sorry if I offended you.)

Berry: Replying to you takes time that I'm short of right now. (Are you relieved or disappointed? )
Luigi Novi: Just a bit confused. I thought you said your thoughts on this subject only required one sentence.

Berry: Oh I know you weren't backpedaling. That's why the "" was at the end of that sentence. (You were backpedaling from the word I put in your mouth. I thought the joke was clear. Sorry if I offended you.
Luigi Novi: Well, I didn't know you were joking per se (sometimes I'm not sure if you're joking or not, and for all I knew, that smiley might've been an expression of self-satisfaction in your "belief" that you had caught me in the act of backpedaling), but no, I wasn't offended, and I'm glad you cleared it up, buddy.

Luigi,

One sentence: you are wrong.

or

If we remove DS9 that nit is still there because...

Note from acting moderator (have no idea where Phil got the idea I didn't quit. Because I still don't want this job, but I really am starting to hate Blue Berry.) : You are the one who is wrong and that is a fact. Nothing you can say can change it. IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INSURRECTION WRITER TO KEEP CONTINUITY WITH WHAT CAME BEFORE. ONLY SOMEONE WITH A LOW I.Q. WOULD EXPECT THE DS9 WRITERS TO KEEP CONTINUITY WITH A MOVIE THAT DIDN'T EXIST YET. THAT IS A FACT!

or

If we remove ST Insurrection that nit is still there because...

If the car hits the pedestrian and we remove the car there is no collision. Tell me why the car is still at fault if we remove the pedestrian.

The analogy is false.

In the first place, whether the car or the pedestrian is at fault is dependant upon a lot of details of the situation that you leave out. Was the car speeding, running a red light, or jumped the curb because the driver was drinking? If so, even if the pedestrian were removed from the situation, the driver is still at fault for doing those things, and might just as well collide with, say, a telephone pole or mailbox instead of the now-absent pedestrian.

Or, did the collision occur because some dumb pedestrian (maybe a kid chasing after his ball) ran out into the street? If so, it's the pedestrian's fault.

The comparison between this collision and the story/movie situation simply doesn't hold. I don't know how many different ways I can explain it to you, William, or why it's so difficult for you to grasp such basic common sense. When the writer of the first premise creates that premise, he doesn't have anything contradicting it to work against. To blame him, therefore, is to argue that he should somehow be aware of what someone's going to write in a movie years away, which simply doesn't make sense, William.

DS9 writer: "Okay, this is it. It’s what we’ve been building toward for years. Now that more Dominion ships are coming through the wormhole, Sisko decides to mine the wormhole, which provokes the Dominion into going to war.
Rick Berman: "Wait a minute. That contradicts established continuity."
DS9 writer: "Really? But I checked all the reference and found nothing to contradict it. What continuity?"
Rick Berman: "The continuity established in a Star Trek movie."
DS9 writer: "ST First Contact?
Rick Berman: "No, one that we haven’t written of or thought of yet, but will make in about two years."
DS9 writer: "Oh. You know the plot of this movie?"
Rick Berman: "No."
DS9 writer: But you know that it can’t take place during the war?
Rick Berman: "No."
DS9 writer: "But it somehow requires that the Federation not be at war?
Rick Berman: "Well….not really."

Simply put, the series and the movie are not a car and a pedestrian. The statement "Remove DS9 and the nit disappears" is a true one, but then again, so is the statement "Remove Insurrection and the nit disappears." Those statements are both true, but they don’t have any connotation as to fault. In and of itself, those statements are whimsical and hypothetical. They have no practical meaning or context, because no one is going to "remove" one of them. You’re simply choosing the former statement because of a personal bias you have against DS9, which does not have anything to do with them being at fault. They didn’t cause any nit, because nothing existed at that point for them to contradict. Not so for Insurrection.

"You, sir, imply that I will not admit my error of calling Family Matters Family Ties." - Blue Berry

You may have inferred that, but I certainly made no such implication.

My comment was a sarcastic (hence my pseudonym) way of addressing your argument. If (according to you) Insurrection is not at fault for a discrepency in facts established long before its writing, then you can hardly be at fault for misremembering which show Urkel appeared in. According to your logic, the fault lies with the creators of Family Ties.

This logic is beyond flawed.

Your existentialist "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound if no one hears it?" argument has been tried on Nitcentral before. And no one was convinced that the dictionary people were wrong.

Thread closed. Berry is a second jwb.

And for the record, I closed this thread because it was going nowhere. Berry just didn't get it. His hate for DS9 blinded him to any real discussion.

This thread will remain closed (it's well over 100k). I haven't edited anything.