Jeff O'Connor wrote:
I disagree if for no other reason than to a point a finger at two 'worse' offenders -- TOS and Enterprise. Neither series intended for its cast to feel like a total ensemble though so they're technically off the hook, but put side-to-side I thought Voyager did a fine job.
Much as I like Enterprise that's what's missing for me -- its non-leading cast is less-developed than Harry Kim. Point is, that's saying something.
Does this excuse Voyager from the problem? No, of course not. But the thing is there are many worse offenders out there. Not every show can be DS9-esque about it.
You have a point there, Mayweather may be less developed then Harry Kim. I was thinking more of TNG and DS9. But then what is the point of having these characters if they contribute nothing?
I am a bit forgiving to TOS, because it was the first show and from a far different era and some of the characters got a chance to shine in the movies.
Also just because Enterprise did the problem worse doesn't excuse Voyager in the slightest, if a student gets a D-, they shouldn't lord over a student who got an F, especially when there were students who got an A.
There is nothing I dislike more on a show then main characters who are completely one dimensional and contribute nothing of value.