RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,721
Posts: 5,214,802
Members: 24,211
Currently online: 724
Newest member: dmhp32


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Voyager

Voyager There's coffee in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 3 2011, 02:08 AM   #31
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

Rikerbait.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2011, 02:36 PM   #32
TheLobes
Commander
 
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

exodus wrote: View Post
Tal Celest passed the Academy.
Had the same training and experience as Harry Kim.
Same rank.
Is she on equal standing as an Ensign on the Enterprise?
I have no idea who Tal Celest is, but if she was an ensign then, yes, she would have equal standing as an ensign on the Enterprise. Maybe an enterprise ensign would have had a bit more prestige, maybe theyd actually be better at the job. However, they are both of the same rank and would be expected to perform the same duties competantly.

Who else but her, Harry and Seven did they ever show build something?

I recall O'Brian needing ALLOT of help getting DS9 to stay up and running. Sisko built the Defiant, that also trumps O'Brians skills and I also recall Dax having skills in Engineering too. LaForge often asked Data for help for almost EVERYTHING he did. Westly had ideas and created stuff LaForge never even dreamed of.
The difference with O'Brien and Laforge is that they were always the centre of the engineering department, and everything worked through them. Laforge asked Data for input, but it never felt like Data took over control, they always just collaborated. As for Wesley, that was a mistake that the writers got rid of.

I dont think Sisko built the Defiant, and remember that episode where O'Brien was off doing something else and the whole station was suffering. O'Brien was always on a tight schedule and you could see his was pretty vital. Torres never seemed like the centre of engineering in that way, often characters just took over from her.

Since we're not going to agree on this though, I will amend my former statement. How about this: the characters on Voyager, generally, were people first and job decriptions second, whereas previously this was reversed.

Before, most characters started off as either 'the engineer' or 'the doctor', and then their characters grew from that. On Voyager, it seems like the actual characters were worked out before they were placed in their roles on the ship. So, the fact that Torres is a half Klingon maquis is much more important than the fact she is the head of engineering.
TheLobes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2011, 03:14 PM   #33
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

With regards to O'Brien and DSN, wasn't part of the engineering problems down to the fact that sometimes Cardassian and Federation tech didn't work that well together. You've also got to remember O'Brien would have been trained first and foremost with Fedeartion tech. So all things considered he did a very good job of keeping the station operational.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2011, 07:51 PM   #34
Anwar
Vice Admiral
 
Anwar's Avatar
 
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

And he was a veteran of the Cardassian Wars, so he had experience with their tech.
Anwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2011, 01:13 AM   #35
exodus
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: The Digital Garden
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

I have no idea who Tal Celest is, but if she was an ensign then, yes, she would have equal standing as an ensign on the Enterprise. Maybe an enterprise ensign would have had a bit more prestige, maybe theyd actually be better at the job. However, they are both of the same rank and would be expected to perform the same duties competantly.
Tal Celest was an Ensign that barely made it thru the Academy and couldn't perform her duties on Voyager because to spite her ranking, she couldn't understand the jobs she was given. Therefore he skill level wasn't near ANYONE of her rank no matter what starship she was on. You can't expect someone that graduates with straight A's to have the same skill level as someone that graduates with straight C's.regardless of rank. That's why the reward of good grades and excellent service is to serve on the Enterprise.

I dont think Sisko built the Defiant, and remember that episode where O'Brien was off doing something else and the whole station was suffering. O'Brien was always on a tight schedule and you could see his was pretty vital. Torres never seemed like the centre of engineering in that way, often characters just took over from her.
Sisko says he helped build it in "The Search".

Don't you find it odd O'Brian has an entire Engineering staff that can't do their job while he's gone? You don't find it far fetched that one man can fix an entire station as large as DS9 all by himself? It's not only unrealistic, it's nearly impossible.

Yes, Torres works smart so she doesn't have to work hard.
Part of being a good boss is training your staff to carry on work while you're away or delegating work to others to get it done faster. Regardless of who ever does the job, B'Elanna still gets credit because she head of the dept. and trained her staff well.
That's realistic.
__________________
A Tiger doesn't loose sleep over the opinion of sheep.

Last edited by exodus; September 5 2011 at 01:30 AM.
exodus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2011, 03:26 AM   #36
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

You don't get promoted for being excellent at your job if it's your job is to be excellent. They promote you if they think you can do "more" because it should be impossible for you to do better, otherwise you'd be dismissed.

Kim was excellent at following orders, but promotion from his current position meant that he would have to give more orders and take less. The higher up he goes the more freethinking he would have to be in his ability to make the crew follow his will. Just because Kim could change the ships sparkplugs it doesn't mean that could organize 80 crewmen to simultaneously carry on a lexicon of activities across a broad spectrum of responsibilities aboard ship frictionlessly.

What about the guys and dolls in Security with no engineering background who excel in their profession? Are they never going to be promoted because they don't know how to change the sparkplugs? or are they going to be promoted because Tuvok thinks that can Guard more important doors and sneer more panoramically?

(Can nurse become an admiral or a general if they're really good at their job? I'm sure doctor can. But if you're good at your job, no matter what your job is, surely there's room for advancement... I always wanted to see Hotlips in charge of the 4077th. She was career military, it seems weird that Frank outranked her.)

They handled this on Battlestar quite well. There was a deck hand technician who wanted to be a pilot, and she had almost qualified before civilization fell, but "now" they said that she was too valuable and good at her job repainring ships to be promoted and they couldn't "waste" her sending her off against the Cylon Vanguard if it would take 10 years to train up a replacement for her.

Maybe the reason Kim was never promoted was that he was too awesome?

If they promoted him to management, they'd need 12 guys to replace him, which means that they would have to promote a further 6 Ensigns to Lieutenant to administer all the extra substitute Kim's (all of who would have to be replaced with enlisted personal, who would... and so on and so on...) which would evaporate the lower ranks and (re)place firmly Lieutenant Junior grade at the bottom of the rank totem.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2011, 02:07 PM   #37
DarKush
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

TheLobes wrote: View Post
DarKush wrote: View Post
[Geordi and Dr. Crusher didn't get that. Despite LaForge's popularity and the potential romantic tension existent in the Crusher-Picard relationship, that never really got the attention it deserved during the course of the series. Trek Lit. has handled it much better.
.
One of my favourite things about TNG is that it didnt feel the need to 'flesh out' every single character, and I am beyond grateful that the writers never put Crusher and Picard together. Not everything has to be 'developed', in fact it can really ruin a show. The Picard/Crusher relationship got the exact right amount of attention, it was something always present between the two characters that served to give them some more depth and give an impression of their pasts in an interesting way.

Its a relationship that never quite happened for a number of reasons, but theres still a slight feeling between them. I found it subtle and interesting, and am glad they never made it into a 'relationship'. It just seemed so real and natural.

Same with Laforge, or even Riker. He was a well developed character in terms of personality, and there was really no need to make any changes or give him any particular arcs. The idea that every character needs 'development' is something that killed trek, in my opinion.
Re: Picard-Crusher

As opposed to unreal 'relationships'? I didn't think it made much sense to build this thing up and then put Picard with a series of random women that the audience didn't have an attachment to while Crusher was sitting around. The Picard-Crusher marriage in "All Good Things" felt right, even if it ended in a divorce, which happens too in life. I didn't say they had to be happily together.

I don't agree with you on LaForge. I don't think he was well developed, or as developed as he should've been. He would get the occassional bone tossed here and there but he was mostly a background player, when he could've been more than that. TNG largely wasted an opportunity to utilize Burton's talent. And I don't understand how more character development "killed" Trek. How did less interesting or developed cast destroy the franchise?

I don't think widespread character development has ever been a hallmark of Star Trek. By my estimation, with TOS, Kirk and Spock were the main ones that got developed. On TNG, Picard, Data, and Worf. With VOY, Janeway, Seven, Doctor, and ENT, Archer-Tucker-T'Pol. DS9 is the only Trek series that I felt truly attempted to be an ensemble piece (not perfectly, but it got it better than the others; TOS excepted since it wasn't designed to be an ensemble show; and maybe ENT wasn't either-not sure).
DarKush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2011, 11:00 PM   #38
exodus
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: The Digital Garden
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

DarKush wrote: View Post
TheLobes wrote: View Post
DarKush wrote: View Post
[Geordi and Dr. Crusher didn't get that. Despite LaForge's popularity and the potential romantic tension existent in the Crusher-Picard relationship, that never really got the attention it deserved during the course of the series. Trek Lit. has handled it much better.
.
One of my favourite things about TNG is that it didnt feel the need to 'flesh out' every single character, and I am beyond grateful that the writers never put Crusher and Picard together. Not everything has to be 'developed', in fact it can really ruin a show. The Picard/Crusher relationship got the exact right amount of attention, it was something always present between the two characters that served to give them some more depth and give an impression of their pasts in an interesting way.

Its a relationship that never quite happened for a number of reasons, but theres still a slight feeling between them. I found it subtle and interesting, and am glad they never made it into a 'relationship'. It just seemed so real and natural.

Same with Laforge, or even Riker. He was a well developed character in terms of personality, and there was really no need to make any changes or give him any particular arcs. The idea that every character needs 'development' is something that killed trek, in my opinion.
Re: Picard-Crusher

As opposed to unreal 'relationships'? I didn't think it made much sense to build this thing up and then put Picard with a series of random women that the audience didn't have an attachment to while Crusher was sitting around. The Picard-Crusher marriage in "All Good Things" felt right, even if it ended in a divorce, which happens too in life. I didn't say they had to be happily together.

I don't agree with you on LaForge. I don't think he was well developed, or as developed as he should've been. He would get the occassional bone tossed here and there but he was mostly a background player, when he could've been more than that. TNG largely wasted an opportunity to utilize Burton's talent. And I don't understand how more character development "killed" Trek. How did less interesting or developed cast destroy the franchise?

I don't think widespread character development has ever been a hallmark of Star Trek. By my estimation, with TOS, Kirk and Spock were the main ones that got developed. On TNG, Picard, Data, and Worf. With VOY, Janeway, Seven, Doctor, and ENT, Archer-Tucker-T'Pol. DS9 is the only Trek series that I felt truly attempted to be an ensemble piece (not perfectly, but it got it better than the others; TOS excepted since it wasn't designed to be an ensemble show; and maybe ENT wasn't either-not sure).
I agree with this.
__________________
A Tiger doesn't loose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
exodus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2011, 12:14 AM   #39
propita
Rear Admiral
 
Location: fresno, ca, us
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

So do I. And it was the relatively massive character development of DS9 that I was hoping for with VOY. Good actors, potentially great characters, and many were all-but ignored.
propita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2011, 03:01 AM   #40
Anwar
Vice Admiral
 
Anwar's Avatar
 
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

Eh, I personally think the show would've worked out better with a smaller central cast with guys like Kim, Neelix, Kes and possibly even Torres as secondaries. DS9 worked with its' larger cast because it was a Galactic Epic storyline, whereas VOY was designed to be a smaller show (practically an Anti-Epic).

That the show really only had 1/2 or 1/3 of a series plot compared to the other shows didn't help much either.

Last edited by Anwar; September 6 2011 at 03:16 AM.
Anwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2011, 03:39 PM   #41
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

VOY unlike most ships, couldn't receive replacement crew e very other episodes. As such it had a chance to build up a decent secondary cast. Who we would see fairly often. Apart from Carey and Vorrik VOY failed to utilise a small number of secondary characters.

Anyone remember the Transoprter Chief from TOS who was more often or not Lt. Kyle. Who was Voyager's Transporter Chief?, almost seemed to be a new one every week.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2011, 06:43 PM   #42
Anwar
Vice Admiral
 
Anwar's Avatar
 
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

And what would make these Secondary character worth watching in the first place? It's not like they'd have any religious icons, former spies, exiled nobility, fugitives, etc on the ship as Secondary characters.

DS9, Babylon 5, Farscape and NuBSG at least had their secondary characters be all those varied sorts rather than just "another crewman" types.
Anwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2011, 08:55 AM   #43
Guy Gardener
Fleet Admiral
 
Guy Gardener's Avatar
 
Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

Pregnant Sam Wildeman gets stuck in a Jefferies Tube.

Tom exclaims: "Oh my, It's just like Winnie the Pooh"

...

8 episodes in 7 years, and Nancy is a Voyager celebrity.
__________________
"Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft."

Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz
Guy Gardener is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2011, 01:55 AM   #44
exodus
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: The Digital Garden
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

propita wrote: View Post
So do I. And it was the relatively massive character development of DS9 that I was hoping for with VOY. Good actors, potentially great characters, and many were all-but ignored.
Honestly, I never expected any spin off to be anything like the ones before it. DS9 wasn't anything like TNG, much like TNG is very different from TOS even in character development. Besides Mulgrew, the cast of VOy were different class of actors than those of DS9. Much of DS9's cast were stage actors while many of Voy's were mostly TV actors from my understanding. I didn't expect the same dramatic quality. I also didn't find DS9 to be as "Americana" as Voy. was either.
__________________
A Tiger doesn't loose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
exodus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2011, 02:01 AM   #45
exodus
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: The Digital Garden
Re: Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

MacLeod wrote: View Post
VOY unlike most ships, couldn't receive replacement crew e very other episodes. As such it had a chance to build up a decent secondary cast. Who we would see fairly often. Apart from Carey and Vorrik VOY failed to utilise a small number of secondary characters.
Seska, Lt. Hogan, Lt. Jonas, Suder, Niomi & Sam Wildman, the Borg Kids & Icheb don't count?
__________________
A Tiger doesn't loose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
exodus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
characters, voyager

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.