Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? - Page 7

Gotham Central · September 17 2011, 03:10 AM

exodus wrote:

Gotham Central wrote:

exodus wrote:

I loved Nog but yes, I still agree.
If he was developed or not, his role didn't effect the show in anyway that would have made a difference.
Morn got a story simply because they had to create stories to stretch the season out.
While the writers were spending time developing the secondary cast, they completely and admittedly dropped the ball on developing a main cast member- Jake.

The question under discussion was NOT whether or not the show pivoted on the importance of any one character. It is about the level of development of the characters. In terms of pure character development, Nog was one of the most developed characters in all of Trek. Never mind that Nog was prominently featured in some of the most important episodes of the series...including the episode that first introduces the Dominion.

So what?
Why would you take time on development of a secondary cast if you can't devote time and development to the main cast? DS9 could develope others because they had already taken the time to flesh out the main cast before the secondary.

That is a question of poor leadership and a creatively bankrupt writing/production staff. NOT, as Anwar suggested, a consequence of the situation developed for the series.

exodus · September 17 2011, 03:16 AM

Gotham Central wrote:

exodus wrote:

Gotham Central wrote:

Excuse me but NOG, was one of the best developed characters in all of Trek and his arc has him going from loser trouble maker hanging out on the Promenade and nephew of Quark to being the first Ferengi in Starfleet and an invaluable member of the crew. He goes from nothing to cadet, to ensign to Lieutenant in 7 seven years. Thats more development than Harry Kim and Nog was NEVER a member of the main cast.

Morn, a character that never spoke, actually got character development and got to play an important role during the war.

Thats called having excellent writers that actually understand and want to work with the cast of characters that they have.

Voyager could have done the same thing. The Maquis were rogues that we know also included mercenaries and all types of interesting folks. Hell, the Enterprise, the flagship of the Federation gave us Barckly...a holoaddict with social dysfunctions.

Look at the characters that they COULD have used...

Carey...who disappears at the end of season one only to reappear and be killed off 6 years later (which was downright insulting)
The Equinox crew
The uncooperative Maquis
The misfits

essentially they could have done ANYTHING other than what they chose to do...which was to down play most of the main cast and largely avoid secondary characters.

Whats really BIZZARE is that they did that and then had the nerve to do that stupid Ensign Lindsay Ballard episode later on...about a supposedly beloved member of the crew that "dies" yet mysteriously turns up and reignites a relationship with Harry Kim. Imagine how interesting or dramatic that episode would have been had it featured a character that we'd ACTUALLY SEEN BEFORE!!!! I consider this episode a prime example of Voyager epic fail...a story that should have been more emotional but wasn't because the writers were lazy all along.

If you've got main cast members like Tuvok & Chakotay being underwritten, why would you still turn you're back on actors you're paying top dollar for to focus on characters and actors you're only paying minimum for? Do you think it's fair to Tim Russ & Robert Beltran to be overlooked for lesser actors?

Your question has merit in as far as it supports my thesis that the writers on Voyager were either incredibly inept or just plain lazy. Neither of which reflects well on the series.

I think it's easy for fans to say this when we weren't part of the behind the scenes process to understand how and why a room full of writers and producers all came to the same conclusion as to the direction the show took.
Everybody says, it's lazying writing but does anyone ever ask, what factors were involved that might not have allowed them more focus on those characters? It's obvious too me something changed the writing style of the show between s1-3 and s4-7 which wasn't lazy writing but rather they were told to change there writing dynamic on the show.

exodus · September 17 2011, 03:18 AM

Gotham Central wrote:

exodus wrote:

Gotham Central wrote:

The question under discussion was NOT whether or not the show pivoted on the importance of any one character. It is about the level of development of the characters. In terms of pure character development, Nog was one of the most developed characters in all of Trek. Never mind that Nog was prominently featured in some of the most important episodes of the series...including the episode that first introduces the Dominion.

So what?
Why would you take time on development of a secondary cast if you can't devote time and development to the main cast? DS9 could develope others because they had already taken the time to flesh out the main cast before the secondary.

That is a question of poor leadership and a creatively bankrupt writing/production staff. NOT, as Anwar suggested, a consequence of the situation developed for the series.

Why can't it be a little bit of both?
Voyager had several aspects that were against it from the start. I don't believe the blame falls on just one group, everybody that went into creating the show had a part to play in the success or failure of it.

Anwar · September 17 2011, 05:36 AM

Gotham Central wrote:

This is your usual cop out. Voyager was supposed to be about a single ship with a divided crew struggling to survive in hostile space while trying to get home.

It was a plot already done in TOS and TNG, and resolved much faster.

How is that NOT an environment for cultivating interesting characters.

If they were the last survivors of their civilization and their survival led to interesting questions on how they as a species and society would go from there, then there's something.

If they were the only hope for that area of space against a powerful invading foe and the survival of the universe was up to them, then there's something.

If they are just a bunch of nobodies in a situation that other crews easily got out of, and they have little to no reason to get involved in any local affairs or any big adventures, then there's not much there.

How is that less a challenging environment than a war zone?

Because then there's something important at stake from their actions, beyond their own unimportant lives.

Relayer1 · September 17 2011, 11:18 PM

exodus wrote:

Anwar wrote:

I never found Nog all that interesting, or that developed. Take him out of the show and nothing would have been any different.

I loved Nog but yes, I still agree.
If he was developed or not, his role didn't effect the show in anyway that would have made a difference.
Morn got a story simply because they had to create stories to stretch the season out.
While the writers were spending time developing the secondary cast, they completely and admittedly dropped the ball on developing a main cast member- Jake.

It's Only a Paper Moon.

Hologram, supporting Ferengi, superb episode...

Guy Gardener · September 18 2011, 12:25 AM

Pocket Books made some fake covers fro April fools a decade back.

There was a book all about Morn called "Seven years on that stool almost killed me."

exodus · September 19 2011, 04:00 AM

Relayer1 wrote:

exodus wrote:

Anwar wrote:

I never found Nog all that interesting, or that developed. Take him out of the show and nothing would have been any different.

I loved Nog but yes, I still agree.
If he was developed or not, his role didn't effect the show in anyway that would have made a difference.
Morn got a story simply because they had to create stories to stretch the season out.
While the writers were spending time developing the secondary cast, they completely and admittedly dropped the ball on developing a main cast member- Jake.

It's Only a Paper Moon.

Hologram, supporting Ferengi, superb episode...

Yes it is but it still doesn't effect anything on the show, only the character himself. If it never happened nothing on DS9 would be changed by it, nothing change because it did either.
Nog's development has no effect on the shows theme/plot what so ever. His stories are basically well told filler to stretch out the season.

Guy Gardener · September 19 2011, 05:55 AM

Um.

DS9 had a larger plot, each of which eventually carried a season and showed the evolution of the entire run. There were important stories toward the larger story and then there was filler.

Voyager didn't have a larger plot. Everything was filler.

If Nogs development is unimportant because it was filler, then everything from Voyager is unimportant because it was all filler inbetween the pilot and the finale. Nothing of consequense happened in between Caretaker and Endgame, except Janeway changing her hair cut, the mobile emitter, Seven swapping out with Kes and the delta Flier, which are all quite superficial.

Anwar · September 19 2011, 03:17 PM

...Which is why VOY needed a larger plot.

Guy Gardener · September 19 2011, 03:54 PM

If Voyager had a larger plot it wouldn't be Voyager.

TNG didn't have a larger plot and it was fine.

DS9 was a progression from TNG, and then Voyager was a regression from DS9, which would only be justifiable if DS9 was a HUGE failure.

Which it sort of was.

Anwar · September 19 2011, 08:38 PM

TNG didn't have a larger plot, but it did have the ability to easily become a larger plot and then go back to small once it felt like it.

If they weren't going for any new kind of plot than TNG, they shouldn't have bothered making VOY in the first place.

Guy Gardener · September 19 2011, 10:22 PM

Say you made the yummiest cake in the universe, and the next day, you want some more of that cake but you've already eaten it? So what are you going to do, follow the recipe exactly to recreate the yummiest cake in the universe again which is equally as satisfying and exactly what you want, or do you deepfry a turkey?

TNG was made by the TOS people. It was a 1960s model. It's how they knew how to make a TV show, and that's fine, and it's still done today and that's fine too. Voyager was still TOS as much as it ever was TNG from a production standpoint.

The suits from network wanted a proven model that would make them money, and the producers may have wanted to do better than they had before but... Could they? I mean it's not like they would be holding back their talent for some reason?

Unless they believed as I believed that a different model would target the wrong audience, they would miss their marks and fall flat on their faces before the audience they wanted found them as the audience they had wandered off furious that they were not being satisfied.

Anwar · September 20 2011, 12:59 AM

The problem was Paramount assuming that there were lots of people who liked their brand of cake in the first place. Trek just isn't that mainstream, never has been never will be.

Guy Gardener · September 20 2011, 01:23 AM

TNG's ratings were mmmmmmmmmassive compared to it's successors.

But that's probably because it targeted children in the first season, who unfortunately grew up and wandered off.

Anwar · September 20 2011, 01:55 AM

And because by the end of TNG there were other shows that had seen their success and capitalized on it.

So, the cake store had some cupcake and confectionery rivals open across the street, with their exotic foreign frosting.

September 18 2011, 12:25 AM	#96
Guy Gardener Admiral Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.	Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? Pocket Books made some fake covers fro April fools a decade back. There was a book all about Morn called "Seven years on that stool almost killed me." __________________ "Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft." Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz

September 19 2011, 05:55 AM	#98
Guy Gardener Admiral Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.	Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? Um. DS9 had a larger plot, each of which eventually carried a season and showed the evolution of the entire run. There were important stories toward the larger story and then there was filler. Voyager didn't have a larger plot. Everything was filler. If Nogs development is unimportant because it was filler, then everything from Voyager is unimportant because it was all filler inbetween the pilot and the finale. Nothing of consequense happened in between Caretaker and Endgame, except Janeway changing her hair cut, the mobile emitter, Seven swapping out with Kes and the delta Flier, which are all quite superficial. __________________ "Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft." Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz

September 19 2011, 03:17 PM	#99
Anwar Vice Admiral Location: Regina, SK, Canada	Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? ...Which is why VOY needed a larger plot.

September 19 2011, 03:54 PM	#100
Guy Gardener Admiral Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.	Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? If Voyager had a larger plot it wouldn't be Voyager. TNG didn't have a larger plot and it was fine. DS9 was a progression from TNG, and then Voyager was a regression from DS9, which would only be justifiable if DS9 was a HUGE failure. Which it sort of was. __________________ "Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft." Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz

September 19 2011, 08:38 PM	#101
Anwar Vice Admiral Location: Regina, SK, Canada	Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? TNG didn't have a larger plot, but it did have the ability to easily become a larger plot and then go back to small once it felt like it. If they weren't going for any new kind of plot than TNG, they shouldn't have bothered making VOY in the first place.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

September 19 2011, 10:22 PM	#102
Guy Gardener Admiral Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.	Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? Say you made the yummiest cake in the universe, and the next day, you want some more of that cake but you've already eaten it? So what are you going to do, follow the recipe exactly to recreate the yummiest cake in the universe again which is equally as satisfying and exactly what you want, or do you deepfry a turkey? TNG was made by the TOS people. It was a 1960s model. It's how they knew how to make a TV show, and that's fine, and it's still done today and that's fine too. Voyager was still TOS as much as it ever was TNG from a production standpoint. The suits from network wanted a proven model that would make them money, and the producers may have wanted to do better than they had before but... Could they? I mean it's not like they would be holding back their talent for some reason? Unless they believed as I believed that a different model would target the wrong audience, they would miss their marks and fall flat on their faces before the audience they wanted found them as the audience they had wandered off furious that they were not being satisfied. __________________ "Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft." Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz Last edited by Guy Gardener; September 19 2011 at 10:33 PM.

September 20 2011, 12:59 AM	#103
Anwar Vice Admiral Location: Regina, SK, Canada	Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? The problem was Paramount assuming that there were lots of people who liked their brand of cake in the first place. Trek just isn't that mainstream, never has been never will be.

September 20 2011, 01:23 AM	#104
Guy Gardener Admiral Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.	Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? TNG's ratings were mmmmmmmmmassive compared to it's successors. But that's probably because it targeted children in the first season, who unfortunately grew up and wandered off. __________________ "Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft." Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz

September 20 2011, 01:55 AM	#105
Anwar Vice Admiral Location: Regina, SK, Canada	Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped? And because by the end of TNG there were other shows that had seen their success and capitalized on it. So, the cake store had some cupcake and confectionery rivals open across the street, with their exotic foreign frosting.