www.ditl.org

You know if you only focus on the bad stuff you'll only find the bad stuff. At least Enterprise does something interesting. What did TNG do? Nothing. The only memorable parts of TNG were the Borg and the introduction of Q. Other then that it didn't really do anything of interest. Not to mention the horrible ship that is the E-D, and the holyer then thou attitude Picard has, Wesley(nuff said), and one boring story after another with no overall plot whatsoever. So, Voyager and Enterprise didn't take their premise to their full potential, but at least they had a premise that wasn't just a repeat of the original series.

Teaos wrote:I'd like to see you do a run down of VOY, I'm one of the few here who enjoyed it.

Best VOY reviews you'll ever find.

Blackstar wrote:You know if you only focus on the bad stuff you'll only find the bad stuff. At least Enterprise does something interesting

By all means, please name anything that series did that wasn't moronic.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:You know if you only focus on the bad stuff you'll only find the bad stuff.

Likewise if there's only bad stuff to find.

At least Enterprise does something interesting.

Oh really? What?

What did TNG do? Nothing. The only memorable parts of TNG were the Borg and the introduction of Q.

And YE, and the Cardies, and the Klingon political arc, to name but a few.

one boring story after another with no overall plot whatsoever.

Yes, there were boring stories amid the good stuff. That there were nothing but boring stories is simply your opinion (a contradictory one, given that you've already mentioned the Borg and Q as memorable).

As for overall plot, there's the Klingon arc, Q's trial arc, and who needs arcs anyway?

So, Voyager and Enterprise didn't take their premise to their full potential

That's a good cadidate for understatement of the year if ever I saw one.

at least they had a premise that wasn't just a repeat of the original series.

So? The premise of the original series, a "wagon train to the stars" was a pretty damn good one.

Rochey wrote:By all means, please name anything that series did that wasn't moronic.

Klingon forehead arc? Fixed one of the problems created by previous series.

The premise of the original series, a "wagon train to the stars" was a pretty damn good one

But TNG tried to copy that at first and did a piss poor job at it.

Klingon forehead arc? Fixed one of the problems created by previous series.

It may have fixed the problem, but the episodes were hardly anything great.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Klingon forehead arc? Fixed one of the problems created by previous series.

It was a decent couple of episodes, although the problem would have been solved better by making the two types of Klingons different species, politically ascendant at different points in their history.

But TNG tried to copy that at first and did a **** poor job at it.

In your opinion. An opinion very few people share.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Klingon forehead arc? Fixed one of the problems created by previous series.

It was a decent couple of episodes, although the problem would have been solved better by making the two types of Klingons different species, politically ascendant at different points in their history.

Except two different species of Klingons are A) Unlikely and B)doesn't fit into previous canon. As discussed with the Xindi it's unlikely for two different species to evolve on the same planet. And we saw smoothheaded Klingons as bumpy-headed Klingons.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Except two different species of Klingons are A) Unlikely and B)doesn't fit into previous canon.

Prove it.

As discussed with the Xindi it's unlikely for two different species to evolve on the same planet.

Not really - I can think of at least one planet on which tens of millions of species have evolved

And we saw smoothheaded Klingons as bumpy-headed Klingons.

Quite easilly reconcilable with the theory as particularly famous/well-regarded smoothheaded Klingons being allowed to retain their place despite the political shift, and going through cosmetic surgery to fit in to the new order.

Captain Seafort wrote:...Not really - I can think of at least one planet on which tens of millions of species have evolved...

I'm sure shi meant to say "sentient species", Seafort.

Not really - I can think of at least one planet on which tens of millions of species have evolved

I meant sentient species you idiot.

Quite easilly reconcilable with the theory as particularly famous/well-regarded smoothheaded Klingons being allowed to retain their place despite the political shift, and going through cosmetic surgery to fit in to the new order

So, you think that once the bumpy heads overthrew the smoothheads they let the famous bumpy heads keep their positions? Does that seem very Klingon-like to you?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:I meant sentient species you idiot.

Then why didn't you say so, idiot?

So, you think that once the bumpy heads overthrew the smoothheads they let the famous bumpy heads keep their positions? Does that seem very Klingon-like to you?

Yes - give the bumpy-heads obsession with military prowess, making an exception for three of the Empire's greatest military commanders makes perfect sense.

Captain Seafort wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:I meant sentient species you idiot.

Then why didn't you say so, idiot?

Because I thought anyone over the age of three could understand that. Hence, why I called you an idiot.

So, you think that once the bumpy heads overthrew the smoothheads they let the famous bumpy heads keep their positions? Does that seem very Klingon-like to you?

Yes - give the bumpy-heads obsession with military prowess, making an exception for three of the Empire's greatest military commanders makes perfect sense.

So they'd put the three most likely people to overthrow them in key positions withen the Empire? Ya, that makes perfect sense.

I meant sentient species you idiot.

Newsflash: there are tens of millions of sentient species on our planet.
The word you're looking for is sapient.

IIRC, sapience means wisdom, or ability to act with judgement. Sentience is feelings, intelligence, etc.

I'd say "self-awareness" would be more appropriate, though, I suppose an argument could be made that many humans are neither sapient nor sentient. Some aren't truly self-aware either...

Rochey wrote:

I meant sentient species you idiot.

Newsflash: there are tens of millions of sentient species on our planet.
The word you're looking for is sapient.

Sapient meaning Having great wisdom and discernment? Some might argue that there isn't even a sapient species on this planet