Voyager: 11:59

[Riedquat]

Yay, build a totally out of place, out of character, oversized bit of bland, souless modern mall. No wonder I've completely gone off progress, my sympathies were entirely with the old guy. Those who accuse people of viewing the past through rose-tinted spectacles usually appear to be looking at the present and future with them.

I don't understand the fascination people have with old buildings and I never will. Give me something modern, bright, clean and multi-functional over a run-down dirty old bookshop in a dirty run-down street any day. And BTW i'm not talking about landmarks or truly historic buildings here, i'm talking about this strange attachment people have to things past their use-by date just because they're old.

Past their use-by date? There's nothing wrong with most of them, they're still perfectly functional usually. I don't undestand the fascination anyone has with modern ones, they just scream dull, impersonal soulessness. I've seen precious little built in the last century that isn't utterly uninspiring.

And on the topic of rose-tinted spectacles, 99% of the past was, for the most part, absolutely God-awful for anyone that wasn't rich and powerful. If you were poor, it didn't matter what race or sex you were despite what people seem to think today; you were living in freezing cramped buildings, with mouldy food on the table that could not be refrigerated, horrible medical conditions because painkillers and antibiotics had yet to be invented, little to no education, and almost no prospects for getting out of your situation. These people would have traded their left arms to live inside a modern mall. So, yeah; the present and future is better in every way that counts to the past and the sooner we leave it all behind the better.

Depends on exactly when you're talking about, but there's a hell of a lot of babies that have been thrown out with the bathwater. There's a lot of stuff that I'm glad has been left behind, but precious little that's been added that I particularly care about, and too much change has involved pissing on the bits that were worth keeping. At least once you've reached roughly the mid 20th century (changes in social attitudes and medical advances being about it since then, most of the rest being luxuries I could take or leave at best). Depression and suicide rates are telling.

I certainly wouldn't want to go live in Victorian times, but to pretend 100% of everything is preferable now is as misplaced as pretending it was all great then. I'm glad I live in a 19th century building with enough modern additions like electricity, that's an example of keeping the good bits and removing the downsides (the outside toilet is a storeroom these days).

[clearspira]

[/quote]
Past their use-by date? There's nothing wrong with most of them, they're still perfectly functional usually. I don't undestand the fascination anyone has with modern ones, they just scream dull, impersonal soulessness. I've seen precious little built in the last century that isn't utterly uninspiring.

See, right there is part of my problem. Define ''soul'' or ''soulessness'' in this context. Define ''impersonal.'' Define ''dull.''
Like the old man in the episode, I always hear these words thrown around when people debate why old buildings are better than new ones but they are meaningless because no context is given as to why they are these things. I see no reason why a new build is/isn't any of the things.

[Rocketboy1313]

Speaking as someone who works in Urban and Regional planning I find the idea that this dead main street is being held up because of one business owner (especially in the midwest where this sort of urban renewal has them thirsty as fuck for any sort of investment like this) to be comical.

I know everyone likes to jerk off to the thought of how lovely and quaint American "small town" main streets are, few if any have architectural value, they were hacked out cookie cutter junk most of which have poor wiring, poor layout, and are only valued because the United States is a comically young country without any structures from ages of innovative eras of architecture outside of major cities, and all of those are skyscrappers built within the last hundred years.

What is more, even if the bookstore owner didn't want to sell, the town government would eminent domain his building "Kelo v. City of New London" style (2005 case, but it would still totally shake out the same way). Sorry, but there are hundreds of dusty wasting small towns all over the country, there are not too many cities of the future, the economic benefits would smoosh this guy's property rights like Godzilla roaring the phrase "HIGHEST AND BEST USE"! The town council would bend over backward for this sort of thing.

[Riedquat]

Define them? They're subjective, but so what? Define why a beautiful piece of music can move someone, or a sunset, or why you love someone. Maybe you can find that in a new building, and if you feel that way it's no less invalid for you. These aren't sharp, measurable definitions. They're there to try to give an impression of the feelings generated, and once you've got past the basics of survival those feelings are what matter. Can I explain in other, completely clear and unambiguous terms that everyone would agree with why I'm an awful lot happier living in this 19th century house than the modern (well, modern-ish, 1970s I think) estate I was on before I came here? Without using such imprecise words, not really, but that doesn't make it any less real.

There's also an issue with modern stuff not generally aging well, although hopefully we're past the worst of that (the post war period was bad for that here, although that might've just been the result of having to rebuild a lot on limited resources).

[Riedquat]

I know everyone likes to jerk off to the thought of how lovely and quaint American "small town" main streets are, few if any have architectural value, they were hacked out cookie cutter junk most of which have poor wiring, poor layout, and are only valued because the United States is a comically young country without any structures from ages of innovative eras of architecture outside of major cities, and all of those are skyscrappers built within the last hundred years.

Sounds like a fair point, I'm looking at it from a British perspective.

[bronnt]

As far as the episode, I think it is fine. I rather liked the Y2K prediction. Really all the 1999 scenes were pretty good, while the Voyager scenes just felt like they were getting in the way of the real story. It must have been difficult to pick a Stupid Nelix Moment. The winner was probably correct but I think the scene of him pestering Seven about having children was a solid contender for it.

I think it's actually a good episode without any context. If I found someone who knew next to nothing about Star Trek and had never seen Voyager, and then I showed them this episode, they would probably conclude that Voyager is a pretty good show.

The problem is that it lacks any context to resonate. The entire reason people are prompted to look at their family trees in this episode is that Neelix started spouting out information from his wiki-binge. It's not thematically connected to anything-there's no continuity or ongoing character growth which is being serviced, but this episode PRETENDS we're dealing with well-fleshed out personalities on the ship. The only bits of characterization that matter even slightly are 1) Tom Paris is a history buff, and 2) Seven's unique interaction with her own ancestry.

[Riedquat]

The problem is that it simply isn't a story about the characters of the show, it's a completely different one shoehorned into a Voyager episode. That's probably why the mention of Carbon Creek (the different time part being incidental). I suppose you can make a story based on a character's ancestors and how that influenced them, changing with new information, but it's the character we know who should be the focus not the past story.

[jadenova]

So basically the entire town would have been demolished and the people living there would be scattered with the building of the Millennium Gate?

[bronnt]

What is more, even if the bookstore owner didn't want to sell, the town government would eminent domain his building "Kelo v. City of New London" style (2005 case, but it would still totally shake out the same way). Sorry, but there are hundreds of dusty wasting small towns all over the country, there are not too many cities of the future, the economic benefits would smoosh this guy's property rights like Godzilla roaring the phrase "HIGHEST AND BEST USE"! The town council would bend over backward for this sort of thing.

Some of us do like to pretend we're not living in a dystopian world where you require the government's permission to own things, and to do with them what you wish.

I do wonder how this guy imagined things would work out for him, though (even assuming no overt threats or the heel of a government boot on his neck). You're a small business owner servicing one particular niche, so your profit margins can't be that great. Everyone knows you're the only person holding up a major construction that will bring jobs and development to your city center, so you're alienating your only customer base. There's no additional means of income demonstrated. How long after this developer leaves town would you be able to hold onto that bookstore anyway?

[Darth Wedgius]

I do wonder if there was a theme of "letting go of the past" at play in both Janeway's realization that her ancestor wasn't who she thought and the bookstore owner deciding to sell.

I think it was a nice chance for Mulgrew to do something different, and showed another layer to Janeway other than romantic interest or Starfleet Captain. I've never understood people's interest in genealogy other than for medical purposes, but Mulgrew made me sympathize with Janeway's disappointment.

I'd give it a 7. It took a risk, and, even though I tune in for a show about rocket ships and ray guns, a story about an eccentric bookstore owner held my attention for an hour. I understand SF Debris's not giving it a score, though.