Biggest problem with "Voyager" is that they didn't really take any chances.

[Anwar]

Not showing the Borg is a "cop-out?" Ok, I'm lost.

We'll agree to disagree, as we usually do

Saying "If you can't sacrifice a ton of people to the Borg in the episode they show up in, then don't show the Borg at all." is a cop out.

After all, after BOBW had the Borg assimilated most of the Ent-D's crew? Was the ENT-D a floating wreck? No, within 2 episodes things were fine.

And no, saying "Well, they had a Drydock to go to" isn't an answer. If Voyager had found some safe port to go to after a battle with the Borg, THAT would just be derided as well.

It's just more proof of what a no-win scenario Voyager was in. The audience just wasn't in the mood to give them any of the easy breaks they gave the past shows.

 

[fireproof78]

Saying "If you can't sacrifice a ton of people to the Borg in the episode they show up in, then don't show the Borg at all." is a cop out.

After all, after BOBW had the Borg assimilated most of the Ent-D's crew? Was the ENT-D a floating wreck? No, within 2 episodes things were fine.

And no, saying "Well, they had a Drydock to go to" isn't an answer. If Voyager had found some safe port to go to after a battle with the Borg, THAT would just be derided as well.

It's just more proof of what a no-win scenario Voyager was in. The audience just wasn't in the mood to give them any of the easy breaks they gave the past shows.

It reduces the menance of the Borg if Voyager is constantly "surviving" those encounters, including assimilation by the Borg. TNG didn't sacrifice many crewmembers either, but the Borg still felt menacing in that episode.

Secondly, the whole Voyager had allies argument would have been nice to see it rather than assuming it occurred. Otherwise, I can assume my way past any number of plots holes in anything. Why have the writers try?

Third, the Ent-D is much larger than Voyager, and Voyager is constantly infiltrating Borg space with the Delta Flyer. Again, it strains credibility.

Finally, there is no "the audience." Voyager made it seven seasons, there is plenty of data to show individuals enjoy it, and I can enjoy episodes of it as well. But, the Borg, like the Klingons in TNG and DS9, were overused.

 

[Anwar]

It reduces the menance of the Borg if Voyager is constantly "surviving" those encounters, including assimilation by the Borg. TNG didn't sacrifice many crewmembers either, but the Borg still felt menacing in that episode.

They killed off people in the first Borg episode when the Borg cut out a piece of the Ent-D, and then killed thousands in BOBW. Voyager didn't have thousands to sacrifice, and they tried to get around that by having the Borg raze other worlds. It didn't work.

Secondly, the whole Voyager had allies argument would have been nice to see it rather than assuming it occurred. Otherwise, I can assume my way past any number of plots holes in anything. Why have the writers try?

I'm saying that even if they did find a Drydock or friends to fix the ship after a battle with the Borg, then the complaint is "They shouldn't have found help and the rest of the season and part of the next season should have them crippled! Maybe the series!"

Third, the Ent-D is much larger than Voyager, and Voyager is constantly infiltrating Borg space with the Delta Flyer. Again, it strains credibility.

No more than the Defiant being able to survive Dominion attacks that their bigger ships apart.

 

[Prax]

The defiant whips around shooting down everything like Poe Dameron. It has to weave and do barrel rolls just to avoid all the exploding, dying galaxy class ships.

 

[fireproof78]

They killed off people in the first Borg episode when the Borg cut out a piece of the Ent-D, and then killed thousands in BOBW. Voyager didn't have thousands to sacrifice, and they tried to get around that by having the Borg raze other worlds. It didn't work.

No, it didn't.

I'm saying that even if they did find a Drydock or friends to fix the ship after a battle with the Borg, then the complaint is "They shouldn't have found help and the rest of the season and part of the next season should have them crippled! Maybe the series!"

Doesn't make it a valid complaint.

No more than the Defiant being able to survive Dominion attacks that their bigger ships apart.

Defiant was designed for combat. Intrepid class was a science vessel with combat capability. Not even close to the same thing.

 

[Anwar]

No, it didn't.

Yeah, which shows that TNG got away with something VOY didn't. TNG can sacrifice others to the Borg to keep their ship and crew safe but Voyager apparently can't do anything to make the Borg seem tough except sacrifice themselves. Which they couldn't do or the show was over.

Doesn't make it a valid complaint.

But it's still a complaint. The kind of complaint that TNG and DS9 never would've gotten. Apparently Voyager can never walk away from any fight without being the loser.

Defiant was designed for combat. Intrepid class was a science vessel with combat capability. Not even close to the same thing.

The bigger ships we see getting blasted apart like scrap are supposed to be combat vessels superior to the Defiant (the Akira, Norway, Steamrunner and Saber classes) though.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, which shows that TNG got away with something VOY didn't. TNG can sacrifice others to the Borg to keep their ship and crew safe but Voyager apparently can't do anything to make the Borg seem tough except sacrifice themselves. Which they couldn't do or the show was over.

Or, maybe sacrifice somebody already known to show the situation serious? Rather than rely upon the Borg's reputation to proceed them. You can't just say they are a threat, and then have a modified runabout infiltrate their space and destroy a Queen's ship and maintain that level of threat.

But it's still a complaint. The kind of complaint that TNG and DS9 never would've gotten. Apparently Voyager can never walk away from any fight without being the loser.

Ha-ha...no. Multiple threads, research and reviews indicate otherwise.

The bigger ships we see getting blasted apart like scrap are supposed to be combat vessels superior to the Defiant (the Akira, Norway, Steamrunner and Saber classes) though.

Are they? Based upon what exactly?

 

[Anwar]

Or, maybe sacrifice somebody already known to show the situation serious?

Given the reaction to everything else, I seriously doubt having the Borg thrash a Kazon Armada would do much to satisfy the viewers. Or have them assimilate Vidiians or Krenim or Devore or Hirogen or...anyone really.

Rather than rely upon the Borg's reputation to proceed them. You can't just say they are a threat, and then have a modified runabout infiltrate their space and destroy a Queen's ship and maintain that level of threat.

You can't say the Borg are a threat and them have them become Lore's stooges.

Ha-ha...no. Multiple threads, research and reviews indicate otherwise.

I never heard anyone say "The Defiant should be more beat up after that fight." during any of DS9's war episodes.

Are they? Based upon what exactly?

Their designations as "Heavy Cruiser", "Cruiser", "Heavy Frigate" and stuff. And that the Defiant had design flaws they didn't have.

 

[fireproof78]

Given the reaction to everything else, I seriously doubt having the Borg thrash a Kazon Armada would do much to satisfy the viewers. Or have them assimilate Vidiians or Krenim or Devore or Hirogen or...anyone really.

Would have satisfied me.

You can't say the Borg are a threat and them have them become Lore's stooges.

Yes, I can. It was consequences and interesting storytelling.

I never heard anyone say "The Defiant should be more beat up after that fight." during any of DS9's war episodes.

The Defiant should have been more beat up after the fight. It shouldn't have been instantly repaired.

Their designations as "Heavy Cruiser", "Cruiser", "Heavy Frigate" and stuff. And that the Defiant had design flaws they didn't have.

They all had flaws. Speed might have been the Defiant's asset against the Dominion fighters.

All ships have flaws of some kind. Mostly the consoles exploding.

ETA:
Toe be clear, I do not measure Voyager against other Star Treks, any more than I use TWOK as the ruler by which I measure the films. That's a ridiculous standard, because each show had its own ups, downs, strength and weaknesses. My judgement is based on the premise, the story and the characters, and whether I find enjoyment in them. So, telling that people (whomever they are) would complain because VOY didn't do something like DS9 means little to me.

So, perhaps instead of citing places were other shows did things, why not cite areas were Star Trek entertained you?

 

[Trekkin]

This thread's title:


Lastly, it's a non sequitur, as the title assumes "Not taking chances is a big problem.

That's not a non-sequitur. Like a hypothesis, a discussion topic really can't be.

There's similarities, but the entire purpose of thread topics isn't to give a definitive argument or answer. It's to act as a jump off point for elaboration and debate.

Also, there's pretty clearly an implied 'I think' or 'I feel' there. And an outright spoken one:

I was wondering if anyone sort of agree's with me or disagree's. Both ways is good.

Hard to get more 'IMO' than that.

I've never heard anyone say "The Defiant should be more beat up after that fight." during any of DS9's war episodes.

Because the Defiant was outright destroyed, and barely lasted...3 seasons?. It's replacement (which was a brand new ship) didn't last one, and was permanently gone by the finale. Oh, and the only other ship of that type we see (the Valiant) didn't last an episode.

And unlike VOyager and Enterprise, it wasn't in every episode even after its introduction.

 

[Prax]

You can't just say they are a threat, and then have a modified runabout infiltrate their space and destroy a Queen's ship and maintain that level of threat.

Just because the "H" in "http" stands for hyperbole doesn't mean we can change the facts quite that radically.

Yes, I can. It was consequences and interesting storytelling

So when Lore can take over a bunch of Borg drones and it's "interesting storytelling" but when the Delta Flyer "infiltrates" Borg space, it "defangs" the Borg? I mean, there's some pretty big plot points you're ignoring.

Defiant was designed for combat. Intrepid class was a science vessel with combat capability. Not even close to the same thing.

Tom Paris: "The ship was built for combat, Harry!" Voyager's mission: to track down a Maquis Raider in an area of space that no other ships could enter.

ETA:
Toe be clear, I do not measure Voyager against other Star Treks, any more than I use TWOK as the ruler by which I measure the films. That's a ridiculous standard, because each show had its own ups, downs, strength and weaknesses. My judgement is based on the premise, the story and the characters, and whether I find enjoyment in them. So, telling that people (whomever they are) would complain because VOY didn't do something like DS9 means little to me

For someone who has used DS9 as a comparison point of where Voyager "falls flat" in this very thread numerous times, what is the point of this? When one topic get's old, you'll look for a new one to complain about. It's obvious that relentlessly complaining about Voyager is emotionally gratifying for you. This isn't actually honest criticism, no matter how you spin it. You don't like the show...okay. Oh, you don't like some aspects of the show. Well, you never seem to run out of aspects. What is the point? Voyager is not going to change.

It sounds like you have made it utterly impossible for yourself to enjoy Voyager.

 

[fireproof78]

Just because the "H" in "http" stands for hyperbole doesn't mean we can change the facts quite that radically.

It was a joke...I do that.

So when Lore can take over a bunch of Borg drones and it's "interesting storytelling" but when the Delta Flyer "infiltrates" Borg space, it "defangs" the Borg? I mean, there's some pretty big plot points you're ignoring.

Feel free to educate me. By all means.

Tom Paris: "The ship was built for combat, Harry!" Voyager's mission: to track down a Maquis Raider in an area of space that no other ships could enter.

That's a good point. See, I learned something.

For someone who has used DS9 as a comparison point of where Voyager "falls flat" in this very thread numerous times, what is the point of this? When one topic get's old, you'll look for a new one to complain about. It's obvious that relentlessly complaining about Voyager is emotionally gratifying for you. This isn't actually honest criticism, no matter how you spin it. You don't like the show...okay. Oh, you don't like some aspects of the show. Well, you never seem to run out of aspects. What is the point? Voyager is not going to change.

It sounds like you have made it utterly impossible for yourself to enjoy Voyager.

I addressed it when it came up. I never claimed to be unbiased, or a objective critic. I speak purely from my point of view and that's it. Feel free to add me to the "Ignore" list if you think that my mind is completely made up.

I have listed places that I liked VOY and didn't like DS9. This is my opinion and I like exploring different facets of Voyager. My mind has been changed before by open discussion, including about the Star Wars prequels. Please do not presume my mindset.

 

[Prax]

That's not a non-sequitur. Like a hypothesis, a discussion topic really can't be.

There's similarities, but the entire purpose of thread topics isn't to give a definitive argument or answer. It's to act as a jump off point for elaboration and debate.

Also, there's pretty clearly an implied 'I think' or 'I feel' there. And an outright spoken one:



Hard to get more 'IMO' than that.




Because the Defiant was outright destroyed, and barely lasted...3 seasons?. It's replacement (which was a brand new ship) didn't last one, and was permanently gone by the finale. Oh, and the only other ship of that type we see (the Valiant) didn't last an episode.

And unlike VOyager and Enterprise, it wasn't in every episode even after its introduction.

That's like saying "the Delta Flyer wasn't in every episode after its introduction." The Delta Flyer was also destroyed and rebuilt. At least they had the courtesy to name it "Delta Flyer II"
The argument was about a ship getting damaged right? About the hero ship being invincible? The Defiant just smashes through enemy ships. Sisko was so confident in the Defiant, he took it into the wormhole to stop an entire enemy fleet, all by himself. Good thing Janeway wasn't in the chair. We'd be hearing about that on this thread, too.

 

[Prax]

It was a joke...I do that.

Yes

Feel free to add me to the "Ignore" list if you think that my mind is completely made up.

I couldn't do that.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes

I couldn't do that.

Then please do not presume what I am going to do or my mindset about something. I can have both issues with the way a show was produced, and still enjoy parts of it. I don't have to like the whole thing.

 

[Prax]

You must like all...or you must go into exile

 

[fireproof78]

You must like all...or you must go into exile

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Trekkin]

That's like saying "the Delta Flyer wasn't in every episode after its introduction." The Delta Flyer was also destroyed and rebuilt. At least they had the courtesy to name it "Delta Flyer II"
The argument was about a ship getting damaged right? About the hero ship being invincible? The Defiant just smashes through enemy ships. Sisko was so confident in the Defiant, he took it into the wormhole to stop an entire enemy fleet, all by himself. Good thing Janeway wasn't in the chair. We'd be hearing about that on this thread, too.

The Delta flyer wasn't the hero ship. And Voyager wasn't purposefully described as a warship to explaIn the constant 'smashing.' The amount of episodes is only important in establishing how short-lived the Defiant actually was.

And does anyone ever complain that that the DF was invincible? On the contrary, the issue is usually that's it's fixed too easily. Just replacing their ships wholesale a la the Defiant and Enterprise, was not supposed to be an option for Voyager. They had to repair that shit the old fashioned way: Replacement parts and elbow grease.

And yes, Sisko could be hot headed. Which is why he has all his ships blow up, only survives the retaking of DS9 because an entire armada is destroyed after being ordered to protect him at all costs, gets trumped by Eddington repeatedly, loses command more than once, and is vaporised because he decided crash tackling Dukat into lava was a good idea.

Character flaws are fine. A character doesn't even have to develop out of them, because to be flawed is to be 'human' (so to speak). So long as the writers occasionally display why they're 'flaws'. For eg. B'elanna's temper is sometimes displayed as being of some use, but it's also clearly displayed to be a massive detriment in certain situations.

Edit: I don't like posting on my phone. I end up writing novels by accident.

 

[Voth commando1]

Voyager did get stuff done by elbow greese-three shifts a week and lots of trading with friendly aliens for raw materials and spare parts.

 

[MacLeod]

That list has the same ten ds9 episodes listed. And for Voyager, it has Parallax and Death Wish listed, 2 non-time travel episodes.

Only someone who's never gotten into the show, and never watched it much would call it "TNG 2.0" or "TNG Lite." So, what? because it's a "ship show," it's TNG lite?
This is like, a main theme of Janeway. They depict all of this. Are we going to now argue to what degree they should have? This thread is beginning to go in cycles.

What is good? If the producers, writers, actors, etc of the show are happy with the result, the show is objectively good. If they are really happy with a season, that season is objectively really good.

All this "they could have done" or "they should have done" is purely speculative, and nonsense. We weren't there. We don't know what was best for the show. How can we judge a show using an ex post facto set of expectations and critiquing it based on "what it could have done."

I'm sorry, but our ideas today(20 years later), of what it could have done, are out of context. Do we criticized Law & Order for being Law & Order? Should we Criticize Star Trek for being Star Trek?

Most of the suggestions I've seen in this thread are either already in the show(which makes me wonder just how long it's been since you guys have seen the show) or they would turn star trek into a cheesy soap opera, rather than vehicle for telling compelling sci Fi stories.

Note I said featuring time travel, both "Parallax" and Death Wish" featured time travel, yes it might not have been a major element of the episode but it did feature.

As for what is good, that's subjective rather than objective. What I find good might be different from what you find good, or the actors invovled in a TV show or film.

L&O like ST has had several spin offs, SVU, CI, LA, Trial by Jury. Not to mention the foreign ones. But do we critise the spin off shows for not being L&O?

Now as for expectations, I'm sure many of us read several articles etc.. on what the writers/prodecures etc... wanted to do with the show whilst it was in development/pre-production i.e limited resources. If what they say they wanted to do fails to develop then who is at fault for having expectations?

Now some viewers of the show caught it in re-runs, or hadn't read much about the direction the producers wanted to take so they came in with a different set of expectations to those that had. This difference in mindset may in part play a role in the differering views on the show. To the later any critisims coming from the former group might seem like ex post facto but for the former it's not as they aren't forming a view retroactively they formed a view of what they would get before they even say the show based on articles/interviews etc.. with the producers of the show.

Now what is compelling TV? Once again we are dealing with something which is subjective. What is compelling to one person might be okay to another person and boring to another person. Did VOY have some compelling episodes sure it did most TV shows do have episodes that some will find compelling that others won't.

Now whilst some of these things which we have debated might be in the show, the next debate would be should they have used them/developed them more than they did?

This thread's title:
Biggest problem with Voyager is that they didn't really take any chances.

This is in fact a generalization. Voyager has 178 episodes, multiple producers, 3 show runners, many, many writers. The title assumes objectivity in what a "problem" is and implies that there are many other "problems." And of course it assumes that Voyager "didn't take chances." which makes it a false premise.

Lastly, it's a non sequitur, as the title assumes "Not taking chances is a big problem."

In the first few pages, posters had noted "chances" that Voyager did in fact take, but they weren't disputed, only ignored.

VOY had 172 episodes.

As for not taking chances is a big problem once again we are dealing with something that could be subjective, for those for whom VOY was their first Trek show it might appear new and fresh for those that had been fas of ST through TOS, TNG and into DSN what VOY might be doing might be seen as being stale and old and they want Trek to take that Big chance. And some might srgue the inital premise was taking a big chance.

Yes but what did the OP mean when they said really? One person could read that literally as it didn't take any chances whilst another could read it as yes they took some chances but even when they did taake a chance they didn't do much with it.