That's what I'm getting the need for wanting Voyager to be like NuBSG instead of what it was. It would've been silly for the Marquis to be confrontational with the Voyager crew for seven years or even passed seven months. They needed each other to work together to survive.
Why do Star Trek fans hate Voyager? - Link
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
Agree completely. The Maquis don't see the Federation as evil, they see them as a force that bureaucratically neglects evil while demanding conformity to receive their graces. They're rational enough to know that their survival odds are far higher with the Federation than without and also moral enough that they wouldn't want to kill anyone.
Voyager could have used a Maquis who was like a toned down version of Eddington, an idealist who romanticizes righteous rebellion, respects Federation crewmembers but detests its policies, but was smart enough to know they needed to work with the Federation for their survival best interest. Somebody who would quell any rumblings of rebellion among the Maquis but would have spirited idealogical debates.
I always got from the Maquis that many in the Federation were actually at times sympathetic toward them and that in turn not every Maquis rebel equated Federation to actual Cardassian. Now if Voyager had been Cardassian with Maquis things would've been simply hostile, yet needs must. Survival dictates.
It's hard to ignore one's roots with so many Maquis being Academy/Starfleet trained or to not take into account as you cite the cause of righteous rebellion. Some of those ideals may have seemed betrayed to the Maquis by the Federation when they were traded off. On Voyager they didn't have to be. Interesting though I was scrolling through our friend Memory Alpha and Maquis episodes and those referencing them through B'Elanna and Chakotay, Seska, Jonas, Suder, blue guy (
)etc. even in part Tuvok given he is in several Macquis centred episodes, are more than I expected. Out of all the Voyager Maquis I felt B'Elanna even more than Chakotay held onto its identity the most and not necessarily with Klingon aggression though when she discovered most had died and that was years into Voyager's journey, she felt it. She even lashed out at Tom and tried to hurt herself, repeatedly. The conflict of being Marquis on Voyager didn't have to be between the two crews simmering away forever, it was felt like for B'Elanna or Tabor (Nothing Human) on a personal level.
Why? Because there are times when that might be necessary?
Who is asking for nuBSG? Seriously, who? I see this accusation tossed about several times, but, honestly, it is feeling like a strawman more and more.
There is more to storytelling than the extremes of TNG to nuBSG after all.
It's a common reference used when describing how Voyager should have been, in threads like these, including this thread, including recently. It often comes with added Ron Moore interviews, Stargate comparisons, and occasionally the statement "They should have been at each others throats." (not a paraphrase)
People who say that forget that NuBSG ran out of steam after only 2 seasons, fell apart in the 3rd and needed literal deus ex machina to have anything resembling an ending.
In Caretaker the opening scroll says the Maquis were formed because of the new treaty. It said the colonists banded together to continue the fight against the Cardassians. It sounds like the 2370 treaty since 2367 was an armistice, not a treaty.
Still in Caretaker, Paris tells Janeway Chakotay left Starfleet on principle to defend his home colony from the Cardassians.
In Tattoo Chakotay says his father died fighting enemies who would have taken their home colony. He said he returned to the colony to continue the fight in his name.
In the Flesh Chakotay says he resigned his commission on March 3, 2368.
Maybe a resistance was spawned during the war before the cease fire of 2367 and it continued, underground, until the Maquis officially sprang into existence with the signing of the treaty in 2370. We all know how respectful the Cardassians are of treaties and ceasefires. Pfft. It could be the baby steps to the Maquis so maybe Chakotay lumps them into the same category.
Kind of makes sense and fits the time line, no?
Last edited:
Well, with all due respect to Ron Moore, no thanks. The idea that VOY should be 7 years of conflict is, as @Anwar noted, not sustainable.
But, I would be more of the opinion the Maquis not blend seamlessly in with Starfleet either. The Maquis have philosophical reasons for fighting against Starfleet, and the Cardassians. Those difference may dissipate against the larger need to survive, but the Maquis members are certainly not all going to throw in with the idea of "Let's explore" when they have homes that they were just fighting for to get back to.
Now, to be clear, I don't want 7 seasons of conflict. I don't want nuBSG wrist slitting TV. I do want the optimism of Star Trek to undergird VOY's exploration but it would be nice to see that resistance to it in more than just Seska's throwing in with the Kazon.
Unfortunately tptb were terrified enough at having the first female captain. They didn't dare have Chakotay challenge her on ideological grounds, at least not until much later in Scorpion.
He had a little tenacity in season 1.
"I'm not gonna be your token Maquis puppet!"
I love that line. He was really ticked during that conversation and Janeway looked pretty stunned when he asked to leave. He stormed out of there like a thundercloud.
I don't recall that line, but I recall the term 'Token Maquis' thrown out in Parallax when they were debating about Torres.
Whether or not NuBSG was consistently good for its entire run is irrelevant to the question of whether 'Arguing against the extreme' is a reasonable tactic for arguing that there should have been no conflict with the Maquis.
When you bring up NuBSG, you are basically making a slippery slope argument, arguing against the extreme. Nobody in this thread at least wanted the opposite extreme, but you're still arguing as if anyone who thought there should be more conflict wanted the crews to be in a state of constant bitter conflict for seven years. It's the Star Trek equivalent of saying 'Anyone in favor of gay marriage is saying you should be able to marry your dog'. You're ignoring the arguments people are actually making and instead making up an extreme position that's easy to argue against.
"STAR TREK VOYAGER" was not perfect. It had its problems. However, neither "STAR TREK", "STAR TREK: NEXT GENERATION", "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" and "ENTERPRISE" were perfect. They all had their problems I have not seen "DISCOVERY" yet, so I cannot comment on them.
I get sick and tired of a lot fans claiming that "VOYAGER" had a lot of problems in compare to the other series. And whenever I bring up the problems of other series, many fans would brush them aside and pretend that these problems do not exist. I get sick of that as well.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again. I believe that "VOYAGER" is targeted by many Trek fans because the series' lead was a woman. Even to this day, there are still a great number of fans who cannot swallow the idea of a woman in the lead of a Trek TV series. Hell, there are still many fans who cannot swallow the idea of a woman in the lead of a science-fiction series/movie . . . especially when she is in a position of authority.
As for Ron Moore, I never gave a rat's ass about his opinion of "VOYAGER". As far as I'm concerned, only my opinion matters.
I get sick and tired of a lot fans claiming that "VOYAGER" had a lot of problems in compare to the other series. And whenever I bring up the problems of other series, many fans would brush them aside and pretend that these problems do not exist. I get sick of that as well.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again. I believe that "VOYAGER" is targeted by many Trek fans because the series' lead was a woman. Even to this day, there are still a great number of fans who cannot swallow the idea of a woman in the lead of a Trek TV series. Hell, there are still many fans who cannot swallow the idea of a woman in the lead of a science-fiction series/movie . . . especially when she is in a position of authority.
As for Ron Moore, I never gave a rat's ass about his opinion of "VOYAGER". As far as I'm concerned, only my opinion matters.
Never heard of Ron Moore and didn't watch nuBSG. Why? I'll tell you why. They turned Starbuck into a woman for crying out loud!! That's like turning Spock into a girl! And for your information I am a woman and have no issue with female leads but come on!
Therefore I respectfully cannot talk about any comparison between them.
Therefore I respectfully cannot talk about any comparison between them.
That's the one.
As I said, it's commonly referenced here, and used as an example of how Voyager should have been(or sometimes "more like"). Here are a few recent examples:
-
-
Here's the comment (AFAIK)that brought NuBSG into this conversation:
It's just a thing.
Well Discovery is crap in my opinion. Voyager is like fine wine in comparison.
Hmmm. I have seen every episode of Trek ever made and for me Voyager is the weakest series. The reason Voyager "failed" for me is that it was too safe. The characters were a little bland. The plots not daring. It was a blank slate show. It was free of the chains of TNG and DS9 and had a chance to boldly go again where nobody had been before. Instead it told safe stories, rehashed elements of TNG (like the overused Borg and Q) and gave us banal nonsense like Neelix's latest recipe when it could and should have been out there telling some truly great stories. Hell, even Enterprise at it's strongest was more daring. In other words, it never lived up to it's potential and I think that is why it is not looked on more favourably by fans who are franchise fans in general. In contrast I think Discovery is more willing to break the mold and is more entertaining as a show per se.
However, having said that one thing I will say for Voyager is that it respected the universe and what came before waaaaaaay more than Discovery does and it still tried to tell more Star Trek-like stories than Discovery does. So I really don't begrudge the show its fans because I feel at its core it was more Star Trek like than Discovery. It just never, like I say, reached its potential.
Well, as someone for whom Voyager is the weakest show, I can honestly say having a female Captain didn't bother me 20 years ago and doesn't now. I think you are, with respect, looking for an easy way to label people. I personally don't "hate" or actively dislike the show, I just don't rate Voyager higher or feel compelled to go back to it because I didn't find the cast as strong as it's predecessors (with some exceptions) or the writing to be as strong. Each series before had episodes like City On The Edge of Forever, The Inner Light, The Visitor and so on. If you compile a list of best franchise episodes you'd be hard pressed to honestly put a Voyager story alongside the very best of the other shows. In fact, I'd say it was probably only Year of Hell that I remember watching and thinking was a memorable story. In seven years I can't really think of anything else that truly stands out for me and Trek needs to stand out and want me to revisit it for me to think it has succeeded it its objective.
I can't speak for others, but I can tell you if a female captain was my issue I wouldn't have sat through 7 years of the show waiting for it to truly reach its peak.
Similar threads
