I like Voyager
, as I like all modern Trek. I don't love
it, the way I do DS9. DS9 is a great show, whereas Voyager
is a perfectly enjoyable, watchable show but nothing special. Some of its episodes are very good, and most are worth the effort of watching as harmless entertainment. I always found the characters engaging, too, although they suffered a great disservice by not being given on-going arcs; they were just there
. I find myself thinking "I like these characters you've got, now please do
something with them, something that will have consequences next week". However, as many others have stated, Voyager
was never very good at living up to its potential. It has good characters and an interesting premise, but while an individual episode is usually good, the series as a whole is somewhat disappointing- which is NOT the same as being bad. Ultimately, Voyager
just doesn't generate the same sense of satisfaction as DS9 does, but it is likable.
Unlike DS9, where a lot of thought went into the progression of the series, Voyager
was never sure what it wanted to do, likely because of the conflicting agendas of the writers. Is it about the Maquis and Starfleet learning to live and work together while facing diminishing resources, or is it TNG-style exploration? Overall, I think Voyager's
potential was neglected. If any Trek show needed a strong arc and attentive continuity, it was Voyager
. I wish, for example, that the Year of Hell had indeed been a season-long no-reset arc as originally planned. That isn't to say Voyager
didn't have continuing plot-lines and episodes relating to earlier episodes in either subtle or overt ways- as with TNG, there's more continuity and arcing in there than a lot of people remember, particularly those of us used to DS9. Still, Voyager
is a collection of episodes, whereas DS9 is a story
. Ultimately, no matter how good many of those episodes are, a strong story is always more engaging.