Why were so many characters on Voyager underdeveloped?

[exodus]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

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.

That is not what I said nor implied and you know it.

Then again, how many reset eps. did Voyager have?
How many events and character develoment moments did we see that never actually happened?

[Guy Gardener]

Did I do that?

[Relayer1]

From the 'Is there something wrong with me ?' thread in General Trek Discussion -

You_Will_Fail wrote:

---

Basically all of my problems with Voyager were outlined by Ronald D. Moore after he quit the writing staff at Voyager in this interview
http://www.lcarscom.net/rdm1000118.htm
It’s a fantastic read and outlines completely how wasted the concept became

Wow - that's pretty much nailed everything that was so wrong with Voyager : it was damning. Ron has been a bit of a hero to me for years, and he has just gone up in my estimation.

The only thing I'd disagree with him on is the strength of the cast. I disliked Janeway, Tuvok and Neelix from the outset and unlike DS9 when, for instance, Sisko and Odo really grew on me, these didn't. Well, Neelix got a little better. The problems were probably as much the fault of the writing as the casting though.

I managed to watch and even enjoy Voyager after a fashion, as a halfway mindless bad guy of the week sci-fi show, but it could have been and should have been much, much more.

I'd like every Trek fan to read that interview, it certainly explains the lack of character development on Voyager...

[Anwar]

Moore doesn't know what he's talking about, and nearly everything in that write-up he did wouldn't work in the Trekverse.

[RyuRoots]

I don't agree with *everything*, but the vast majority of it. He makes a lot of good points, along with some amusingly accurate future prediction on ENT.

[Anwar]

A core problem that a lot of detractors often miss on VOY was a very very important one: The show only had 1/3 of a plot, and that 1/3 was just an idea rather than an actual premise.

"We're lost" isn't a proper premise for a 7 year Trek show. It's a starter plot good for 1 season or so, but not beyond that. And for Trek it isn't even good for that much.

Ironically, Moore doesn't seem to realize that even though he did it with his own show (NuBSG's premise was far more than "We're lost in space").

[Timewalker]

But they weren't lost. They knew where they were; it was the Federation that considered them lost. The point was that they were a really long way from home, and every week they tried to figure out a way to get closer to home, as quickly as possible.

[Anwar]

Still not enough, that's still only a temporary plotline.

[Ln X]

Having read that interview with Ronald D. Moore about Voyager, I have to agree with him on a lot of stuff. But I think what he overlooks is that Voyager and TNG were strikingly similar in format. And some of his arguments about why he didn't like VOY could apply to TNG. Anyway some of the characters on VOY were underdeveloped simply because they weren't thought out when VOY was conceived. Again TNG had some characters like that.

[Guy Gardener]

Voyager was clone of TNG, which was a clone of TOS.

Voyager is a clone of TOS.

Now, right now you might want to be EXACTLY like your grandparents because they seem all worldly and cool, but what if you were just like them 50 years ago with all the racism, smoking, polluting and awful music?

[The Dominion]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

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.

How so? DS9 was only a failure in terms of publicity, apparently it was quite successful in hindsight, even exceeding Voyager's ratings in the end, I believe.

[Guy Gardener]

Success or failure in these terms is about money.

If they can't sell their advertising, because a show is not generating of maintaining a THE RIGHT sort of audience, then the powers that be will not play that show.

There's a number in dollars, which is acceptable that 1 cent less is unacceptable to maintain the pulse on a TV show no matter how "good" artistically it might be.

DS9, not that it lost money, did not make enough money to be seen as a success.

Neither did Voyager.

Enterprise was cancelled midrun, probably because it was losing money.

Hell, Enterprise did not earn it's final season for being good enough. Season Four of Enterprise only came though because there was enough foresight to consider syndication. Week to week Enterprise was a faliure. There was no immediate justification to have it on air losing money for another 22 weeks after season three. However three seasons is too small a bundle for syndication which means that they would lose out on billions over the next few decades if Enterprise was just shelved and forgotten about like every other unsyndicatable TV series.

[exodus]

The Blob wrote:

---

How so? DS9 was only a failure in terms of publicity, apparently it was quite successful in hindsight, even exceeding Voyager's ratings in the end, I believe.

Worf and the Defiant were brought into DS9 to help boost ratings, just like Seven was introduced into Voyager for that same reasons. Ds9 was also on a syndicated network, Voyager was on a major one. The value of syndicated ratings aren't even in the same ratings system as ones from major network TV. While DS9 held strong for syndication, if it was on a major network like Voyager it might have been canceled.
TNG made TV history by being the first show run in syndication that had a large enough audience equal to ANY major network show.
Paramount is a success as far as Paramount is concerned because it still held strong up against it's contenders on other major networks like FOX.

[exodus]

Guy Gardener wrote:

---

Success or failure in these terms is about money.

If they can't sell their advertising, because a show is not generating of maintaining a THE RIGHT sort of audience, then the powers that be will not play that show.

There's a number in dollars, which is acceptable that 1 cent less is unacceptable to maintain the pulse on a TV show no matter how "good" artistically it might be.

DS9, not that it lost money, did not make enough money to be seen as a success.

Neither did Voyager.

Enterprise was cancelled midrun, probably because it was losing money.

Hell, Enterprise did not earn it's final season for being good enough. Season Four of Enterprise only came though because there was enough foresight to consider syndication. Week to week Enterprise was a faliure. There was no immediate justification to have it on air losing money for another 22 weeks after season three. However three seasons is too small a bundle for syndication which means that they would lose out on billions over the next few decades if Enterprise was just shelved and forgotten about like every other unsyndicatable TV series.

QFT.