What person A defines as something being trashed, person B defines as critisim. It is possible to enjoy something yet feel that it was lacking in parts. VOY premise seemed to lean towards a more serialised show, yet we got a more episodic show. A fair few people don't think VOY ever really sold us it's premise hence why the show is referred to as TNG-lite. Surely those who level critisim at episode for the most part tuned in weekly, so it held enough interest for them to tune in but whilst some are happy with what they got others felt it could have been more. Neither viewpoint is right or wrong, as we all have our likes and dislikes. And yes "Shades of Gray" and "Spock's Brain" are bad episodes and they are both definantly towards the franchises bottom end in terms of quality.
I want to know how many bitchy criticizers does my years of fangirling cancel out? Because I think it cancels out quite a lot of them. They swoop in and shriek and point to plot holes and then they're off to the next Big Fail. But I'm here all the time and on facebook and on tumblr and just aaaaaaaaaaaalll over the internet fangirling and panting and loving. I think I cancel out at least 8 of them a month.
I don't think it's valid to compare an opinion of a show overall to an opinion of an individual episode. Last time I checked, nobody ever credibly claimed that every episode of Voyager sucked, and it's my experience that opinions of "The Void" and "Living Witness" were good at the time and continue to be good despite a couple of nitpitcks of arguable severity; I feel you haven't provided evidence to refute that. Last time I checked the consensus was that "Spock's Brain" was so bad it's funny whereas "Shades of Gray" is simply bad-awful. I've seen both get trashed quite regularly here, but I'd also point out that there's little sport, for those looking for it, in trashing an episode considered universally bad. Why trash something nobody will debate you about when you can trash something that will generate some discussion instead?
I suspect some of it is just posters playing devil's advocate against a popular viewpoint. Once in a while there might be a valid point presented, but usually the posts seem designed just to push people's buttons. Especially when there are topic titles like "Don't you think [Actor/Producer/Character/Episode/Series/Film/Obscure Line of Dialogue] was the worst thing about Star Trek?"
But that's not how it is with VOY. When anyone "criticizes" it all they do is point out the bad and never mention the good. That's not critique, it's just trashing something. And no, "It should've been serialized" or "These characters should've been more!" are not critiques, they're just more mudslinging. Like I said with "Living Witness" the number one thing always pointed to is "There shouldn't be a backup!" because they let that drown out anything else about the episode. The premise itself was incomplete, had some good points, but overall needed a bit more time put into it to iron out the kinks. That was also part of the problem, they took something that wasn't totally ready and put it on the air. And yet neither gets mentioned as much as VOY's "criticisms" are.
I'm sorry but you are wrong, I said Living Witness is a good episode and Robert Picardo was one of the best things about the show. I also critise the show for it's lack of continuity. You said when anyone criticises (i.e every person who criticises) all they do is focus on the negative. So I've stated a positve. What I think you mean is that there is a portion of people who focus on the negative.
Well, you can point a finger at me for saying Chakotay could've and should've been a hell of a lot more than Janeway's lapdog. And akoochimoya, my indigenous ass, and all that. Doesn't mean I don't see Voyager's good points. All it means is that I really loathe what they did to one character.
Someone (not Anwar) even accused me of hating Voyager once and being a basher because I posted something sarcastic.
Don't you mean not "exclusively" Anwar? I consider myself middle of the road, but you zelots, you know who you are, most of the time sicken me with your extremes.
The problem is people get attached to characters with a show and you kill enough off, the audience will face attrition and the show becomes a sort of anthology with continuity. There's the issue of emotional commitment to a show. And also such a tactic leads to death for deaths sake (as was cited with Stargate Atlantis. That was the case with Beckett and that did NOT go over well. Same could be said for Trip's gratuitous death in the Enterprise 'finale' and Joe Carey being offed and Admiral Janeway not giving a damn to go back 1 month earlier so his children could have their father back when they return home in 1 months time). The concept leads to some ghoulishness and sadism on the part of some writers. The idea of a cast where no one is safe is one many get enamored with, but in practice it becomes problematic. Would be funny to apply it to a family sitcom though, especially if they start with a Brady Bunch-sized cast.
I can almost envision a television reboot of The Addams Family, with their supporting character neighbors mysteriously disappearing during ratings sweeps weeks.
You don't think as episode where Wednesday, snares, skins and stirfries the neighbours would be ratings gold?