Re: The (ugh!) "Voyager" dino-show...

[dunn1@IDT.NET]

> 
> Ah, but that's the beauty of the Star Trek empire, even including it's
> nadir, Voyager: it is _not_ geared to the lowest common denominator. It's
> multi-generational success is due to the fact that it is one of the more
> thoughtful shows television has ever produced. In fact, those of us who
> dislike Voyager do so because it is the _least_ thoughtful of the Star
> Treks.

The temptation to veer off-topic is so strong!  Well, I didn't start 
it.

I have to say that Trek is ok for mind candy but not really 
thoughtful science fiction in my humble opinion.  Little hard 
science, lots of mysterious "crystals" that somehow let us fly at 
super-light speed, all sorts of other unlikely technological  
miracles that are not anchored in real science and thus fail to 
engage us in their science fiction element (it's really fantasy, not 
science fiction: "wave this magic wand, and the wounds go away"). 

Almost every race is humanoid. 'Nuff said.

Sickening plot devices allow us to "explore" the nature of mankind 
(in fact,  an opportunity for self-congratulation -- no 
surprise the shows are so popular!)  

Finally, it's all wrapped up in an insufferably bland, 
goody-two-shoes view of the future that makes you want to kill 
yourself,  a hold-over of the 1960's  series, in which the Good 
Federation (read United States) confronts the evil Klingons (read the 
Rooskies).  Why else do bored fans cheer that rarely seen trio, 
the  Borg, the Romulans and the (authentic) Klingons?

Of course, even Voyager is far better than the badly-acted and 
horrendously written Babylon 5!  

Speaking of Star Trek . . .

We are Pentium of Borg
Arithmetic is futile
Prepare to be approximated

I'm swearing off off-topic posts!  (After this one!)

Larry
"Very funny, Scotty.  Now beam down my clothes."