RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,959
Posts: 5,391,422
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 443
Newest member: Jadakiss

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


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 February 4 2014, 11:35 AM   #61
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

Well there is no rule to say you can't have a tractor emitter on a door is there?
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2014, 11:50 AM   #62
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

There is one about a large panel that protrudes several meters suddenly becoming recessed double doors, though.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2014, 12:13 PM   #63
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

Point taken.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2014, 07:51 AM   #64
exodus
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: The Digital Garden
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
exodus wrote: View Post
Stoo wrote: View Post
My concern isn't so much specific details like shuttle count. Rather that themes of limited resources and difficulties in keeping the ship running, would have been a good source of story ideas and and helped the show feel more distinct from previous trek.
That may have been if Voyager wasn't on a what was at the time considered a major network. That changed EVERYTHING!
They used a darker approach on DS9. While it did well in syndication, the numbers DS9 pulled wasn't going to work for show on a major network like Voyager. They have a marketing research dept. that finds all this out for them.
Therefore they had to rethink the show and went back to what they felt was a more family friendly show(less darker tone) that would pull back in that audience they were loosing on DS9. While a few fans maybe disappointed, the fact that it allowed Voyager to run a full 7 years was considered a successful move on Paramount's POV and told them there was a larger audience beyond the fan base they were reaching.
Actually, Voyager's ratings went down along the same curve that DS9's did [link]. Paramount probably wasn't too happy about those ever-dwindling ratings.

They already knew there was a larger audience to be had from the TNG days, which was probably why the powers in charge wanted to make both VOY (and later ENT) more like TNG. Unfortunately, what the powers in charge failed to appreciate was that that prospective larger audience wasn't interested in proverbial warmed-over servings from last week's Sunday dinner. And why should they be? The idea that they could keep going on automatic pilot without getting fundamentally creative was what doomed Prime Universe Trek on TV.
Actually what doomed Trek(as Berman confirms it) was over saturation of the market. How much Trek could you have on at one time? Spin-off's can also divide your audience because you're expecting them to be loyal to all but only have the attention span for one. Trek's fan base was never big enough to handle 3 Treks on at the same time and the general audience isn't that big into Trek to watch all 3 either. Plus, you also can't compare DS9's rating to Voyager due the fact syndicated TV runs on a different ratings system than network.

However, the up swing was Paramount was satisfied enough with the numbers. Even with the ratings drop, it wasn't enough were Voyager was ever in any danger of cancellation. With such a high production cost as Voyager was, they wouldn't have kept production going if they were loosing money on it. The numbers and amount of merchandise Voyager sold(Thank you, Seven!) made them open the Las Vegas Experience & gave a greenlight to ENT. Reheated Sunday dinner reminds people of home.
__________________
A Tiger doesn't loose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
exodus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2014, 08:01 AM   #65
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

exodus wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
exodus wrote: View Post
That may have been if Voyager wasn't on a what was at the time considered a major network. That changed EVERYTHING!
They used a darker approach on DS9. While it did well in syndication, the numbers DS9 pulled wasn't going to work for show on a major network like Voyager. They have a marketing research dept. that finds all this out for them.
Therefore they had to rethink the show and went back to what they felt was a more family friendly show(less darker tone) that would pull back in that audience they were loosing on DS9. While a few fans maybe disappointed, the fact that it allowed Voyager to run a full 7 years was considered a successful move on Paramount's POV and told them there was a larger audience beyond the fan base they were reaching.
Actually, Voyager's ratings went down along the same curve that DS9's did [link]. Paramount probably wasn't too happy about those ever-dwindling ratings.

They already knew there was a larger audience to be had from the TNG days, which was probably why the powers in charge wanted to make both VOY (and later ENT) more like TNG. Unfortunately, what the powers in charge failed to appreciate was that that prospective larger audience wasn't interested in proverbial warmed-over servings from last week's Sunday dinner. And why should they be? The idea that they could keep going on automatic pilot without getting fundamentally creative was what doomed Prime Universe Trek on TV.
Actually what doomed Trek(as Berman confirms it) was over saturation of the market. How much Trek could you have on at one time? Spin-off's can also divide your audience because you're expecting them to be loyal to all but only have the attention span for one. Trek's fan base was never big enough to handle 3 Treks on at the same time and the general audience isn't that big into Trek to watch all 3 either. Plus, you also can't compare DS9's rating to Voyager due the fact syndicated TV runs on a different ratings system than network.

However, the up swing was Paramount was satisfied enough with the numbers. Even with the ratings drop, it wasn't enough were Voyager was ever in any danger of cancellation. With such a high production cost as Voyager was, they wouldn't have kept production going if they were loosing money on it. The numbers and amount of merchandise Voyager sold(Thank you, Seven!) made them open the Las Vegas Experience & gave a greenlight to ENT.
Yeah, it was Berman's story all right that nothing was wrong with the product itself. Of course it's the audience's fault for not wanting to watch what was being put out, or the only fault the studio made was putting out too much of it.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2014, 08:28 AM   #66
exodus
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: The Digital Garden
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
exodus wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post

Actually, Voyager's ratings went down along the same curve that DS9's did [link]. Paramount probably wasn't too happy about those ever-dwindling ratings.

They already knew there was a larger audience to be had from the TNG days, which was probably why the powers in charge wanted to make both VOY (and later ENT) more like TNG. Unfortunately, what the powers in charge failed to appreciate was that that prospective larger audience wasn't interested in proverbial warmed-over servings from last week's Sunday dinner. And why should they be? The idea that they could keep going on automatic pilot without getting fundamentally creative was what doomed Prime Universe Trek on TV.
Actually what doomed Trek(as Berman confirms it) was over saturation of the market. How much Trek could you have on at one time? Spin-off's can also divide your audience because you're expecting them to be loyal to all but only have the attention span for one. Trek's fan base was never big enough to handle 3 Treks on at the same time and the general audience isn't that big into Trek to watch all 3 either. Plus, you also can't compare DS9's rating to Voyager due the fact syndicated TV runs on a different ratings system than network.

However, the up swing was Paramount was satisfied enough with the numbers. Even with the ratings drop, it wasn't enough were Voyager was ever in any danger of cancellation. With such a high production cost as Voyager was, they wouldn't have kept production going if they were loosing money on it. The numbers and amount of merchandise Voyager sold(Thank you, Seven!) made them open the Las Vegas Experience & gave a greenlight to ENT.
Yeah, it was Berman's story all right that nothing was wrong with the product itself. Of course it's the audience's fault for not wanting to watch what was being put out, or the only fault the studio made was putting out too much of it.
It's the let's twist words game, I got it.
__________________
A Tiger doesn't loose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
exodus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2014, 09:52 AM   #67
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

exodus wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
exodus wrote: View Post
Actually what doomed Trek(as Berman confirms it) was over saturation of the market. How much Trek could you have on at one time? Spin-off's can also divide your audience because you're expecting them to be loyal to all but only have the attention span for one. Trek's fan base was never big enough to handle 3 Treks on at the same time and the general audience isn't that big into Trek to watch all 3 either. Plus, you also can't compare DS9's rating to Voyager due the fact syndicated TV runs on a different ratings system than network.

However, the up swing was Paramount was satisfied enough with the numbers. Even with the ratings drop, it wasn't enough were Voyager was ever in any danger of cancellation. With such a high production cost as Voyager was, they wouldn't have kept production going if they were loosing money on it. The numbers and amount of merchandise Voyager sold(Thank you, Seven!) made them open the Las Vegas Experience & gave a greenlight to ENT.
Yeah, it was Berman's story all right that nothing was wrong with the product itself. Of course it's the audience's fault for not wanting to watch what was being put out, or the only fault the studio made was putting out too much of it.
It's the let's twist words game, I got it.
There's no need for me to twist anything. So, no. I simply find that statement of Berman's to be not only self-serving but moreover completely uninformative about What Went Wrong in TV Trek. If the problem with Trek on TV was truly overabundance, then it was an overabundance of programming that was incapable of holding an audience. There's no need to twist the facts to support that statement, since the facts are that the ratings of post-TNG Trek only went down, down, down.

In my view, the topic of this thread is a symptom indicative of the problem, which was that powers on high stifled innovation and the attempts of creators and writers to try fundamentally new things. Buy into or reject what I'm saying, I really don't care.

TV Trek tanked, and it won't come back at least until the suits at CBS are satisfied that what caused it to tank won't happen again. If the problem was only an overabundance of the product, then expect it to look more or less the same when it finally comes back. Except—wait for it—it won't look the same. It's going to have to actually compete, which means it will have to take at least some risks, especially relative to the expectations of hardcore fans.

What I see to be going on in this thread is that, when we say things like, "No, they really should have done it this more interesting way instead of the way they did it," we're taking another step towards the realization that maybe overabundance wasn't exclusively the problem after all.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2014, 11:40 AM   #68
WarpCore
Lieutenant
 
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

TheSeeker wrote: View Post
I just watched this video and while it's funny, it also shines a light on one of the weaker aspects of Voyager, namely, continuity.

Just like the ship never showed any wear despite all it went through.

Now don't get me wrong, this is not meant to bash Voyager, it's just an observation.

What other examples of poor continuity did we see?
Here's an old thread you might enjoy.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...&postcount=197

And a quick link to a webpage mentioned somewhere in that long thread.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/in...encies-voy.htm
WarpCore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2014, 03:30 PM   #69
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
exodus wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post

Yeah, it was Berman's story all right that nothing was wrong with the product itself. Of course it's the audience's fault for not wanting to watch what was being put out, or the only fault the studio made was putting out too much of it.
It's the let's twist words game, I got it.
There's no need for me to twist anything. So, no. I simply find that statement of Berman's to be not only self-serving but moreover completely uninformative about What Went Wrong in TV Trek. If the problem with Trek on TV was truly overabundance, then it was an overabundance of programming that was incapable of holding an audience. There's no need to twist the facts to support that statement, since the facts are that the ratings of post-TNG Trek only went down, down, down.

In my view, the topic of this thread is a symptom indicative of the problem, which was that powers on high stifled innovation and the attempts of creators and writers to try fundamentally new things. Buy into or reject what I'm saying, I really don't care.

TV Trek tanked, and it won't come back at least until the suits at CBS are satisfied that what caused it to tank won't happen again. If the problem was only an overabundance of the product, then expect it to look more or less the same when it finally comes back. Except—wait for it—it won't look the same. It's going to have to actually compete, which means it will have to take at least some risks, especially relative to the expectations of hardcore fans.

What I see to be going on in this thread is that, when we say things like, "No, they really should have done it this more interesting way instead of the way they did it," we're taking another step towards the realization that maybe overabundance wasn't exclusively the problem after all.
But some of those hardcore Trek fans as you put it are the ones saying, it would have been more interesting if you had done X instead of Y. Trek's failure on TV wasn't down to just one thing but rather a combination of things.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2014, 06:02 PM   #70
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

MacLeod wrote: View Post
But some of those hardcore Trek fans as you put it are the ones saying, it would have been more interesting if you had done X instead of Y. Trek's failure on TV wasn't down to just one thing but rather a combination of things.
Hardcore fans don't think as a monolithic bloc, that's for sure.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5 2014, 09:00 PM   #71
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

That's no doubt true of many shows. We as viewers can want/expect different things from shows.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2014, 03:20 AM   #72
exodus
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: The Digital Garden
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
There's no need for me to twist anything. So, no. I simply find that statement of Berman's to be not only self-serving but moreover completely uninformative about What Went Wrong in TV Trek. If the problem with Trek on TV was truly overabundance, then it was an overabundance of programming that was incapable of holding an audience. There's no need to twist the facts to support that statement, since the facts are that the ratings of post-TNG Trek only went down, down, down.
If it was that incapable of holding an audience, it would have been cancelled.
TNG made TV history by being the very first show in syndication to make major network ratings.
Anything that followed was automatically going to be less.
It's extremely rare that any spin-off has equal success to the original.
That was a fact before any of these shows aired and well known all studios and those in charge.

In my view, the topic of this thread is a symptom indicative of the problem, which was that powers on high stifled innovation and the attempts of creators and writers to try fundamentally new things. Buy into or reject what I'm saying, I really don't care.
Sometimes economics takes point.

TV Trek tanked, and it won't come back at least until the suits at CBS are satisfied that what caused it to tank won't happen again. If the problem was only an overabundance of the product, then expect it to look more or less the same when it finally comes back. Except—wait for it—it won't look the same. It's going to have to actually compete, which means it will have to take at least some risks, especially relative to the expectations of hardcore fans.
Doubt it.
I don't see Trek returning to TV for a long while due to the fact space sci-fi fad is long over. Thriller/Horror dramas are the new trend.
The new generation that know Trek from the JJ Abrams films has shown no interest in Trek TV shows nor do many of them care.
It's not part of their generation. TV Trek to them is like Murder She Wrote to us.
IF Trek comes back to TV, we'll be 60 and won't be in the demographic anymore, so our expectations aren't going to matter as much as the younger audience.

What I see to be going on in this thread is that, when we say things like, "No, they really should have done it this more interesting way instead of the way they did it," we're taking another step towards the realization that maybe overabundance wasn't exclusively the problem after all.
Everything would be prefect if life was lived retrospectively.
The problem with the thread is, we can wish it was completely different.
We still never had the power of affect change, so we're just blowing smoke up our own asses.
__________________
A Tiger doesn't loose sleep over the opinion of sheep.

Last edited by exodus; February 6 2014 at 03:54 AM.
exodus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2014, 04:09 AM   #73
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

exodus wrote: View Post
If it was that incapable of holding an audience, it would have been cancelled.
TV Trek finally was canceled. To his credit, Berman claimed too much TV Trek was a risk, and he was right.

Even though the numbers never went low enough for cancellation during Voyager's run, the numbers for ENT continued down along the same trend. Due to the constant rate of decay in the viewership, eventual cancellation of some Trek show at some point was inevitable and had been all along since the end of TNG.

In terms of viewership, post-TNG TV Trek was never a growing franchise. If it was sustainable, it was sustainable only in a temporary sense, because it had long enough to fall at the rate it was decaying, for the fall to take about a decade.

IF Trek comes back to TV, we'll be 60 and won't be in the demographic anymore, so our expectations aren't going to matter as much as the younger audience.
I agree that there's no sign of it for the foreseeable future. There's not even a blip of it on the horizon. We're not going to be in the demographic, no. Even if it's not set in the JJ-verse, it won't even be set in Prime Universe either, most likely.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6 2014, 05:06 AM   #74
exodus
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: The Digital Garden
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
exodus wrote: View Post
If it was that incapable of holding an audience, it would have been cancelled.
TV Trek finally was canceled. To his credit, Berman claimed too much TV Trek was a risk, and he was right.

Even though the numbers never went low enough for cancellation during Voyager's run, the numbers for ENT continued down along the same trend. Due to the constant rate of decay in the viewership, eventual cancellation of some Trek show at some point was inevitable and had been all along since the end of TNG.

In terms of viewership, post-TNG TV Trek was never a growing franchise. If it was sustainable, it was sustainable only in a temporary sense, because it had long enough to fall at the rate it was decaying, for the fall to take about a decade.

IF Trek comes back to TV, we'll be 60 and won't be in the demographic anymore, so our expectations aren't going to matter as much as the younger audience.
I agree that there's no sign of it for the foreseeable future. There's not even a blip of it on the horizon. We're not going to be in the demographic, no. Even if it's not set in the JJ-verse, it won't even be set in Prime Universe either, most likely.
Are you repeating what I just said?
__________________
A Tiger doesn't loose sleep over the opinion of sheep.
exodus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7 2014, 11:07 PM   #75
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Endless ammo and other inconsistencies

The ratings went down because mainstream viewers didn't like DS9 and Voyager.

Donald Trump blames the decline in Apprentice ratings on Martha Stewart. It's equally BS. Forget that the show which focused on the actual competitive business aspects of it in the first season then quickly degenerated into just yelling at people and automatically firing the losing PM rather than making the thoughtful decision about who was actually the worst, then responding to declining ratings by focusing more and more on the transparent gimmicks that alienated the original audience in the first place. TWO SHOWS DAMN YOU MARTHA!

Voyager is generally considered to be lower quality than TNG. DS9 is considered by the hardcore fans to be equal or higher quality but mainstream viewers were alienated by the different tone of the show. Everybody, EVERYBODY who liked TNG gave both shows a chance.

Now, the fact they split the core writing team across two shows probably did contribute to the perception of lower quality in Voyager. They could have made Voyager a dark show about a desperate crew alone, or made it an episodic TNG clone, and if it had better writing it probably would have gotten much better ratings.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 08:48 AM.

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