Why do Star Trek fans hate Voyager? - Link
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Not for 7 years straight, that would've gotten ridiculous. They'd never have survived.
Also not sustainable. They'd just be dead if they tried that for a year straight.
Considering this very thing happened to both Kirk and Picard, they had good reason to think they'd find a way home and not have to really travel for 75 years.
In response to the threads question I think Voyager's vocal fans were and still are dealing with three things.
The first, and biggest imo, is fan fatigue. TOS lasted three seasons, ending in 1969. 10 years later we get the first movie. From then on we get a movie every two years totalling 7 before Voyager hits TV screens in 1995. In addition to the movies we have 7 seasons of Next Gen., two years of which overlap DS9. That's like 9 seasons collapsed into 7. Then, while Votager was running, we get two more movies and it shares the air waves with DS9 for 5 years! They may be quite different but they are still Star Trek. Two trek shows on at the same time and in some ways overlapping! Case in point the Maquis were apparently written for Voyager but DS9 kept using and changing them. They went from freedom fighters to terrorists.
The second problem is the amount of canon that had been produced before Voyager even hit our screens. They needed a person hired full time to keep track of it and to rap the writer's knuckles when they strayed. Next Gen did not have this problem because they came first. They had pretty much an open road before them. On Voyager that was not the case so it gave fans who care about canon a heart attack everytime they messed up.
Lastly they used the same writing staff so comparisons to previously written material started cropping up. If Voyager came first the stories would have been original, not repeats. DS9 didn't suffer this as much because it was more a political drama.
Despite this I love Voyager. I consider it my second favorite series behind TOS. I only talk about the flaws because I care. You won't find me on the Next Gen boards because i don't.
The first, and biggest imo, is fan fatigue. TOS lasted three seasons, ending in 1969. 10 years later we get the first movie. From then on we get a movie every two years totalling 7 before Voyager hits TV screens in 1995. In addition to the movies we have 7 seasons of Next Gen., two years of which overlap DS9. That's like 9 seasons collapsed into 7. Then, while Votager was running, we get two more movies and it shares the air waves with DS9 for 5 years! They may be quite different but they are still Star Trek. Two trek shows on at the same time and in some ways overlapping! Case in point the Maquis were apparently written for Voyager but DS9 kept using and changing them. They went from freedom fighters to terrorists.
The second problem is the amount of canon that had been produced before Voyager even hit our screens. They needed a person hired full time to keep track of it and to rap the writer's knuckles when they strayed. Next Gen did not have this problem because they came first. They had pretty much an open road before them. On Voyager that was not the case so it gave fans who care about canon a heart attack everytime they messed up.
Lastly they used the same writing staff so comparisons to previously written material started cropping up. If Voyager came first the stories would have been original, not repeats. DS9 didn't suffer this as much because it was more a political drama.
Despite this I love Voyager. I consider it my second favorite series behind TOS. I only talk about the flaws because I care. You won't find me on the Next Gen boards because i don't.
They should've done what Berman wanted to do and just wait til DS9 was finished before starting another show. VOY was rather rushed into production...and in some places it shows.
I agree but they were milking the cash cow with everything they had. Smh
Here's the thing. Yes, Voyager embraced "new life, new civilizations" aspect, but it also set itself up as being in conflict with the Maquis and wanting to find its way home. That was the whole premise, and was pitched as part of all the magazine articles that I read.
It simply didn't pan out for me the way I expected.
I don't think Starfleet and the Maquis should have been 'At each others throats'. That is a false imperative there that the choice is between constant bickering and fighting and no conflict at all. Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between TNG and NuBSG is the right place for Voyager.
There should have been more philosophical disagreements about the approach to some situations. The writers seemed to think the Maquis should be thugs or something and the conflict was to overcome being thugs to fit into Starfleet discipline. The Maquis aren't thugs, they're idealistic rebels. If there's a situation where a tyrannical government was oppressing people, Starfleet could have invoked the prime directive and the Maquis pushed them to get involved. (Although I guess in the show Janeway was already more than willing to intervene in that situation in cases like Counterpoint). The theme of constantly stopping to explore weird nebulas was referenced a few times but it could have been more of a point of agitation.
There should not have been any kind of mutiny like in the Worst Case Scenario program, and I'm glad Voyager was not that kind of show. But maybe, there could have been more minor rumblings. One example, the Maquis get frustrated about Starfleet turning down advantages to stick to their principles, and stage some kind of protest like "Let's see them try to run their ship underhanded without our help." I guess part of the trouble is a lot of the cases where people could have run idealistic mini-revolts were taken by Tom Paris.
There should have been more philosophical disagreements about the approach to some situations. The writers seemed to think the Maquis should be thugs or something and the conflict was to overcome being thugs to fit into Starfleet discipline. The Maquis aren't thugs, they're idealistic rebels. If there's a situation where a tyrannical government was oppressing people, Starfleet could have invoked the prime directive and the Maquis pushed them to get involved. (Although I guess in the show Janeway was already more than willing to intervene in that situation in cases like Counterpoint). The theme of constantly stopping to explore weird nebulas was referenced a few times but it could have been more of a point of agitation.
There should not have been any kind of mutiny like in the Worst Case Scenario program, and I'm glad Voyager was not that kind of show. But maybe, there could have been more minor rumblings. One example, the Maquis get frustrated about Starfleet turning down advantages to stick to their principles, and stage some kind of protest like "Let's see them try to run their ship underhanded without our help." I guess part of the trouble is a lot of the cases where people could have run idealistic mini-revolts were taken by Tom Paris.
Here's my thing. No, I don't want them to be in constant hostility. I just want there to be conflict of some kind, whether it is a difference of leadership, a difference of problem solving or just a desire to leave a situation behind. Let there be arguements and hurt feelings and unresolved tension for a time.
For the billionth time, no, I don't want VOY to turn in to nuBSG! I don't get why that is a constant reference point, or why people who didn't accept VOY as it was (TNG lite) somehow want dark, suicide inducing, bleakness while drinking vodka and wondering whether or not tomorrow is even worth it!
Conflict and drama don't mean constant on edge, feeling like you can never rest, or being hounded by an enemy. It can be as simple as Kirk escaping with the Enterprise to rescue a friend, or Jellico and Riker arguing over how to command the ship
It doesn't have to be a lot, but certainly more than we got.
For the billionth time, no, I don't want VOY to turn in to nuBSG! I don't get why that is a constant reference point, or why people who didn't accept VOY as it was (TNG lite) somehow want dark, suicide inducing, bleakness while drinking vodka and wondering whether or not tomorrow is even worth it!
Conflict and drama don't mean constant on edge, feeling like you can never rest, or being hounded by an enemy. It can be as simple as Kirk escaping with the Enterprise to rescue a friend, or Jellico and Riker arguing over how to command the ship
This. This is the key difference. Let the philosophical differences shine through between Starfleet and the Maquis. Let the Starfleet officers become resentful that Maquis are being allowed to hold ranks over them. There were so many hints throughout Voyager of what might have been.
It doesn't have to be a lot, but certainly more than we got.
I totally agree. The Maquis were originally freedom fighters, before DS9 went to work on them. They did not follow Starfleet protocol. They fight against what they believe is injustice, at least from their point of view.
Starfleet, on the other hand, was all about following the rules. They obey the directives even if they feel they are wrong. They honor the treaties even if the other side does not. Peace at all costs.
It is no more apparent than in Scorpoin. Janeway is angry because Chakotay broke the alliance with the Borg. She would have kept it going as long as possible. But Chakotay is Maquis, betrayed by Starfleet, betrayed by the collective in Unity. He breaks the alliance when he feels it could harm the crew, just like the Maquis broke the Cardassian/Federation Treaties.
This difference is mentioned a few times during the series. The Maquis way vs Starfleet Protocols. Very different ideologies.
Last edited:
The biggest issue with using the Maquis is that they really aren't different enough from the Fleeters to be a source of proper conflict. I mean, their enemies were the Cardassians and not the Federation (especially since by Voyagers' start they'd barely been around 1 year) and their big point of contention with the Feds is a political dispute now 75 years away.
You can't get 1 seasons' worth of conflict from that, let alone 7.
Look at DS9, the show started with Sisko in a tense relationship with Kira and Odo. Within 1 season they get over it and work together fine from then on.
You can't get 1 seasons' worth of conflict from that, let alone 7.
Look at DS9, the show started with Sisko in a tense relationship with Kira and Odo. Within 1 season they get over it and work together fine from then on.
I agree open conflict between them would be odd and frankly make Chakotay look stupid. They are trapped 70 years from home and Janeway has the bigger ship.
However the Maquis are ideologically very different from the Federstion and their approach to problems more pragmatic. Alliances comes to mind. I believe there is room for conflict and frustration on both sides, just not open rebellion.
And the Feds are the only familiar faces around, AND their main problem was a political dispute barely a year old than was now 75 years away.
Another problem..they never really explained what the big differences between Starfleet procedures and Maquis procedures was. And if they didn't learn to work together, they'd all have been dead within a year or so anyways.
Look at DS9, the major conflicts between Sisko, Kira and Odo were all wrapped up within a season. Even Spock and McCoy got over their differences by the Trek movies.
Alliances talks about it. Scorpion lays out their differences pretty clearly. In fact it causes a massive fracture in Janeway and Chakotay's relationship. Equinox is another and again Chakotay and Janeway come to blows over it. The Omega Directive. Here Janeway actually breaks the order because Chakotay talks he around it. Maquis do not follow the rules blindly.
I do however totally agree with them having to work together to survive. I feel Chakotay gets this maybe more than Janeway who frankly has the ship and more crew to back her. Chakotay buries his Maquis beliefs to make it work but look at Life Line. Janeway is appalled Starfleet wants to know about the Maquis. She sees them as her crew, Starfleet all the way. But Chakotay says 'You may have forgotten, but we have not.' Volumns spoken in one sentence. They are still Maquis, just existing within an alliance that gets them home.
Btw I've enjoy debating this with you.
I thought Chakotay resigned his commission and joined the resistence in 2368 after his father died. They didn't become known as the Maquis until 2370 but they existed before that I thought. Am I wrong?
In Learning Curve, the scene where Chakotay decks the guy and says ‘ISN’T THAT THE MAQUIS WAY?’ is the scene where Voyager most got the Maquis wrong.
Wouldn't that be just as meaningful if the crew were made up of Feds, Klingons, Romulans and any other random DQ aliens?
They existed in secret for like a month or something. They were a pretty new group at the time of VOY's premiere.
In Maneuvers B'Elanna suggests using the transporter in a way Tuvok says would violate Starfleet protocols. B'Elanna replies she has done it before. In the Maquis one doesn't always have the luxury of following Starfleet protocols.
For me this is where they get it right. One flirts with the rules, the other obeys them.
Well for me I watch Star Trek for several reasons but my first is because you have a crew that fight for each other, not against each other. The Maquis fit this. They are ideologically different enough to see the same situation from a different perspective but not so hostile you get outright warfare on board the ship. That's just me though.
As for the timeline, Chakotay resigned in 2368 to join the resistance. The Val Jean was trapped in the Delta quadrant in 2371. That's three years. Explains why not one but two spies were placed on his ship.
I mean, eventually a crew made up of all the major AQ crew WOULD have to eventually put their differences aside. Or the malcontents just leave while the ones who stay are the conciliatory ones.
"The Resistance", but the Maquis didn't really become known until 2370. So I think whoever did Chakotay's backstory didn't think it through.
Similar threads
