09:41:23 PM Aug 23rd 2014
06:56:58 AM Aug 20th 2014
There is an entry for Just Eat Gilligan that says "At one point, Q hints that Voyager would get home a lot quicker if its captain formed a baby with him. As a feminist icon, Janeway rightly refuses to use her body as a bargaining chip. But in later episodes, so much emphasis was placed on how much she's willing to sacrifice to get her crew home that fans couldn't help but wonder why she didn't just boff the jerk." Then, someone replied: "Just screwing Q is one thing, and if was just that, Janeway would have likely done it, but having a child with him this way is something else entirely. Even Scifi Debris points this out, and this is the guy who consistently goes out of his way to paint Janeway as a Villain Protagonist." The second part was removed, as "natter". Still, it does have a point. The trope happens if characters ignore a really simple and trivial solution; and as it was pointed, the proposed solution is anything but trivial. It is correct that there should be no natter, but I think that the entry should be completely removed.
07:35:33 AM Aug 20th 2014
That natter does not give me a good explanation as to why that wouldn't work. So I am averse to remove the entry.
11:54:06 AM Aug 22nd 2014
As I said, the point is that the proposed alternative action should be something really simple and trivial. If you don't understand what is so wrong with a proposal of having an otherwise unwanted son just to ease a negotiation, then you should explain it a bit more. In fact, Janeway is a feminist, and if she subjected herself to that, it would be a huge Character Derailment. Just because "fans" are wondering things, does not mean that their proposed solutions make sense. In fact, can you show some discussion where many fans agreed on this?
12:10:45 PM Aug 22nd 2014
OK, no. I am disagreeing because the natter makes lots of assumptions about context. If the argument is that much assumption-dependent, then it's not a good argument.
01:21:49 AM Aug 26th 2014
These arguments in natter have a habit of being speculation and less-than-soundly grounded in canon. I am extremely dubious of them - is any of that spelled out in the story.
07:10:57 AM Aug 26th 2014
Do you me to justify the plot by using canon? That's a complete tautology, but here it goes: Janeway flatly refused to do that action, nobody ever told her that she should have done otherwise, and eventually got her crew back home without having that son. And that is all canon.
07:28:40 AM Aug 26th 2014
Not that canon. The part about the Just Eat Gilligan not being so simple.
09:06:48 AM Aug 26th 2014
See here. JANEWAY: But I don't love you, Q. Q: Yes, but what does that have to do with it? JANEWAY: Everything. It's the foundation of a family. I could never have a child with someone I didn't love, much less give it up to the Continuum. Q: Ah, yes. The crew of the intrepid starship Voyager. Perhaps you'd be interested in sending them home. JANEWAY: You've tempted me with that prospect before. But frankly, your credibility is more than a little suspect. My crew and I will get home. We're committed to that. But we're going to do it through hard work and determination. We are not looking for a quick fix.
10:16:48 AM Aug 26th 2014
No. The natter was claiming that there are other reasons as well. That is why I keep disagreeing.
10:53:53 AM Aug 26th 2014
We are not discussing the second entry, we are discussing the main one. Let's make a summary of the problems with it.
- The trope requires that the series have a running problem and the characters overlook a simple solution for that problem. Not the case here. Having a son with Q was not an overlooked option (it was considered and rejected, for reasons that make perfect sense). It was not simple either, as the dialogues provided show.
- The proposed solution is not workable because it would require a complete character derailment. They say "But in later episodes, so much emphasis was placed on how much she's willing to sacrifice to get her crew home...", stop right there. It was made clear in several episodes that she wouldn't do anything to get back home. Voyager is not the Equinox, and Janeway is not Rudy Ransom. Thinking that Janeway would simply gave up all her principles in order to get back home, does not make sense within the events and characters as we had seen them.
- "fans couldn't help but wonder...", stop right there. Which fans? Where did they discuss this and agreed on this? I requested clarification, and it was ignored. On the other side, the second entry pointed a specific website that critizices a lot of plots from Voyager that may have been done differently, and yet makes an exception in this case.
03:10:17 AM Nov 25th 2013
edited by 126.96.36.199
edited by 188.8.131.52
I've been thinking a lot about the whole 'two' voyagers and the theory that Harry kim is the only one that survived written in the 'death is cheap' bit. I'm afraid it doesn't really work and I'll try to explain: Lets assume there really are two universes and not copies (debated I know, but this is the premise of the star trek book 'echoes'- a great read BTW, and is also required for this debate to work.) No matter what the result, Harry Kim is 'non-native' to that universe as he is the only one that travelled as well as Naomi. So far from being the only one who made it home, he is the only one who can NEVER make it home. Everyone else, is still 'native' to their universe and made it home. I've not changed anything because I don't really have the heart to. The world is very cruel to Harry. ... sorry Harry. (and Naomi)
04:03:08 PM Aug 25th 2013
While trying to remain fair and unbiased, I have made several edits to parts of this article related to characters' personalities and development. It's debatable over how *well* the show handled these things. However, to say that there was no character development at all, or that it only went to Janeway, Seven and the Doctor, is downright inaccurate and unfair. It makes it seem like it was written by someone who either rarely watched the show, or who was so upset with it that they wrote with an extremely negative slant. I really hope this doesn't lead to an edit war, but I really felt like these changes had to be made.
06:31:18 PM Jan 12th 2013
I've been looking around, I can't seem to find anything that indicates that "iso-" is a unit of measurement of any kind.
06:33:25 PM Jan 12th 2013
06:23:12 PM Jan 12th 2013
I moved "Trope based episodes" beneath the Tropes to save us all a lot of trouble editing, because people keep putting individual tropes in there.
04:05:00 PM Dec 7th 2012
edited by lrrose
edited by lrrose
My edit reasons for my cleaning up the Voyager pages: From How to Create a Works Page: Write a brief description At the top of the page, write up a short description of the work. Good things to include: the name of the work's creator(s), the year it was first published, the genre and medium(s), a brief and spoiler-free overview of the plot, and a link to the official website. Things not to include: quality judgements (don't say how much it sucked/how awesome it was), critical reception (that's just a specific variant of quality judgements), recommendations (don't tell us whether or not we should check it out), plot spoilers. And whatever you do, do not copy text from the Wikipedia page. That is Plagiarism and it is bad. Half of the Voyager page description is quality judgements. Removed link to crowner since we don't have those anymore. "Endgame" was listed as an episode where Xanatos Gambit was used but didn't give any context. The episode where Harry Kim dies and the Harry Kim from a duplicate Voyager takes over is not an example of All The Myraid Ways, as no alternate universes are involved. I feel for Ayala's actor, but Ascended Extra is not ubiquitous enough for aversions to be listed. Done for now, up to Attack Pattern Alpha.
02:01:53 AM Apr 16th 2013
Okay, whatever the problems the old page had, this just isn't good. The opening paragraphs aren't very interesting or tells us much about the show, and it looks totally out of place compared to the entries for the other ST shows. I'd sincerely request that we change it back to the way it was Before.
11:00:46 PM Jun 10th 2012
If Voyager was so god-awfully horrible, explain why it lasted seven seasons? Then, take into consideration that the original series only lasted 3.
04:15:49 PM Aug 25th 2013
"Voyager" was a show that could have gone in any number of directions. As a result, it couldn't please everybody. There were things that could have been done better, sure. But I'm with you; the show was good enough that it lasted it's planned seven-year run (unlike "Enterprise" after it). I've tried to clean up the parts of the article that seemed more like Voyager-bashing than actual information.