Trek Nation Articles
By AmyDecember 17, 2000 - 9:48 AM
There are two new columns over at the Trek Nation. Firstly, regular columnist Fred Shedian has posted (after a few minor technical hitches) the latest edition of his 'Take on Trek' series. This time however, instead of Trek, he literally takes a look at the latest Gene Roddenberry spin-off, 'Andromeda'.
Putting my feelings in a summary, I am very disappointed at the graphical quality of the exterior shots involving battles sequences and the ships themselves. I am not certain this is a permanent problem, as it takes all shows some time to come into focus. However, looking at half a season, I would have hoped the special effects would have improved a little bit more than what we're seeing.
Half a season ago, Kevin Sorbo returned to the small screen to take command of a starship lost three hundred years in the future. The show's continued promise and writing has helped to establish quality entertainment. However, science-fiction relies heavily on special effects. These are needed to help portray the idea that we are looking at something "futuristic." Today, I'd like to take a couple of minutes to discuss a sore spot I'm seeing with the special effects provided for Andromeda.
To read Fred's full critique on the show's SFX, please follow the link.
Again, this view misses the point slightly. Voyager does tackle the deeper issues - "Remember," "Living Witness" and "Latent Image" all spring to mind. Indeed, Voyager's standalone format lends itself extremely well to allegorical issues in the style of the original Star Trek. However, if I were to sum up the theme of the above comments I would have to use the word "inconsistent." Is this the word that epitomises Voyager as a series? Maybe.
I say this because there are plenty of critics and fans alike who don't think the quality of the show changes very much from season to season. A little deviation, perhaps, but not enough to make a difference. However, the dominant Internet view on Voyager is that it's simply not very good. Perhaps that's why it's so difficult to be a Voyager fan on the Internet - there is such a wave of negativity against the show, in snide comments, off-the-cuff remarks (and I'm not talking criticism here), that one can't help feel deviant: "other."
So, is Voyager likeable but mediocre? I have difficulty reconciling those two conflicting viewpoints; I don't generally tend to like things that are mediocre. But is Patrick on to something else here? He seems to give credit for the show's "heart," but not it's overall quality. This leaves us with Voyager as "lightweight" Trek - watchable, even likeable, but without looking at the deeper issues.
Again, to read Caillan's full briefing, follow the link over to the Trek Nation.
Discuss this news item at Trek BBS!
Add TrekToday RSS feed to your news reader or My Yahoo!
Also a CSI: Crime Scene Investigation fan? Then visit CSIFiles.com!
