When did the Janeway hatred truly start to coalesce?

oh not again.

 

According to the most reliable sources, Tuvok was 107 at the start of Voyager's journey. And as a Vulcan, yes, he would be pretty static. Not a bad thing, if your other characters are evolving, to have that one who doesn't.

Problem is, as you said, Harry changed just as much as Tuvok did. Less, even; at least Tuvok got promoted.

 

The Ocampa had been underground for a thousand years with no diplomatic ties to anyone else in space beyond Caretaker who saw them as a child race who could not look after themselves or represent themselves.

The Kazon Ogla had a huge mining operation, and a shop, that serviced extended space. They planted a flag/subspace transponder, that all the other Kazon recognized as a territorial marker, and so did Neelix.

 

Janeway went from not wanting to share technology in Alliances to understanding that sometimes she had to to keep her crew safe in The Killing Game. We learn more about Janeway before Voyager in Sacred Ground and Coda. The episodes with the Da Vinci hologram explored Janeway's scientist side.

 

Janeway had some really awesome moments. Especially in the early seasons. I'm thinking the Tuvix episode where the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few, sorry Tuvix. Or the times she'd show a strong and firm side while also a feminine empathy and warmness while chewing out someone for doing something wrong.

Some of those scenes were just spot on. So good.

Then you had full episodes like where she had to find god or that episode with the giant bacteria? You know, the one where she runs around the ship alone shooting things. I always rather liked her they gave her too much attention.

 

^But that's not character development because it's not reflected in how the character's written in the future, nor are the events ever brought up again in any significant manner (that I recall).

 

Character development doesn’t require reference to specific events though. If Janeway behaves one way in the first season and has changed significantly by the seventh then it’s fair to say there was development.

I think character development doesn’t just live in the writing. It’s also born out of performance decisions and the writers reaction to those decisions when writing that character.

 

Just because a character behaves one way in a first season and does differently in its 7th doesn't always mean it's development.

For example, Sayid in LOST. In season 1, I would put him as one of, if not THE, most honorable character in the group. In the final season, he's almost devolved... he's more hollow, will more easily kill, etc. Granted, he had a lot happen to him, particularly in the last couple seasons, but going from most honorable to least honorable is not what I'd call development.

I guess one can make the argument that I'm talking about character growth and not character development, but it's a very fine line.

By that token, Janeway was written somewhat schizophrenically over the seasons, so I can't really call it development. (I'm speaking as a fan of Mulgrew, because I thought she did great with what she was given.) I think a big reason for this is because of the multiple head writer changes during its run. I've argued part of the reason DS9 was so great was because there was only one real changeover during its run, and it was far enough back that you can really say it was Behr's show. There's something to be said about stability behind the scenes.

 

Personally I think Janeway was much better in the first three seasons.

What i remember from the later seasons, she became very unpredictible. Throwing Paris in the brig and stripping him of his rank for a minor felony was downrtight cruel and stupid.

However, I still like the character and Mulgrew's acting. I blame the faults on stupid writing.

 

I too separate those 2 things. The first is the trend I observe, of Janeway generally growing in her role. The second is inconsistent writing that made Janeway seem unpredictable and unstable. I blame that on the quality of writing, twisting Janeway's character around to suit the immediate purposes of the episode. It doesn't stand in the way of the general development line I see, and it's not unique to Voyager either (cf. Homeward where Picard feels the Prime Directive leaves him no room but to let those people die, and even within the same episode when it's no longer required for the plot tells Beverly he's glad he could save them). But unfortunately, it happened more in Voyager.

 

So it seems everyone (including me) define character development differently…

For me, no character excepting Janeway/Seven/The EMH, on Voyager received the ‘character arc’ treatment but many were developed subtly through the actors performances.

I say many because it’s been stated in interviews that Beltran/Wang basically stopped giving a shit at some point and began phoning their performances in for a regular paycheque. But that’s a whole other story.

YMMV I guess?

 

My thoughts...
Generally: I feel that there were two tiers of issues with Voyager. Tier one was things that would have improved the show, and there was NO excuse for them not to do: explain why they now have infinite torpedoes. Mention their shuttlecraft construction team. Tell us what happened to the Borg baby. Meanwhile, tier two was things that would have made the show great instead of merely decent: have more Starfleet-Maquis tension. More deprivation. Have the ship falling apart around everyone's ears. And, establish certain parameters for the characters, so that they won't drift in and out of character like Janeway did.

 

Yes YMMV. I thought that Seven actually didn't change as much as you might expect given that she had a massive amount of screentime (she did have a lot of character development though). I thought B'Elanna really grew as a person from the beginning to the end of the show - she starts off incredibly insecure and becomes much more professional and less insecure although at the end she's still insecure in her relationship.

The tier two things would have made it a different show, I think. Which is fine, but not my preference. I genuinely like Stargate Universe (I know most people don't) but I don't want Voyager to be Stargate Universe. I really like nuBSG but I love Voyager. I think what I'm trying to say is I'm happy for different shows to be different things because I'll watch the one that fits with the mood that I'm in and that changes.

 

B'Elanna was replaced with a transporter clone in episode 14.

I find it unlikely that the Borg did not streamline Seven's consciousness after they had her in Dark Frontier. It's amazing that she was returned to Voyager still loyal to Voyager.

 

Some individuals are subjected to character assassination. I suppose Kim was a victim of character stagnation?

 

"Star Trek Voyager" had marked the first time in which a Trek show, let alone a major science-fiction show, featured a woman not only as the lead character, but one who had top authority over others. A lot of people didn't like it. Many still don't. I know a lot of people are going to deny this, but I was only able to come up with this explanation. "Voyager", like all of the other Trek shows, had its issues. But I still believe it was a first-rate series. I've never understood the hostility toward it or the Janeway character. And this is why I think sexism played a major role in the hostile attitude toward her and the show.

 

I can agree with most of what you have written.

However, I'm happy that they never took the Starfleet-Maquis tension too far.

I still have bad memories of the horrible Stargate Universe where the most of the series was a long quarrel between the Military Faction and the Civilian Faction on board the ship. It went on in episode after episode, especially in the first season and nothing else happened. Not to mention that the leaders of both factions was very unlikable to say the least.

I actually cheered for the pale blue aliens who showed up in the middle of season one. Finally some good characters even if they were rather mean!

That never bothered me.

I appreciate a good character, no matter what gender it has and I also appreciate a good actress which plays the character. I did find Janeway a good character, at least in the first three seasons.

 

B'Elanna had enormous potential as a character, much of which was slashed out from under her when the decision was made to make her chief engineer immediately. Better to make her the misfit, the person who can't control herself... maybe even brig her a few times.

Character assassination happens to many characters, but it's born of having a character do something that's uncharacteristic of them for the sake of a plotline. Harry's immature antics in "Resolutions" are an example. Here are more:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/worst-character-assassination-episodes.307981/

Stagnation is when a character just doesn't go anywhere. Harry Kim was subjected to generous amounts of both.

I adore Janeway, for all her foibles and mistakes, and those of the writers who brought her to life. And I really like Kate Mulgrew, too. If I ever watch "Orange is the New Black", she'll be the reason.

 

Drive up to Canada, and blow up a coal burning power plant.

Try to explain that you did it for their own good, that only morons burn coal, and that you deserve no repercussions because you are working in these simple foreigners best interests that they are too dumb to understand.

 

Does Canada have coal-burning powerplants? I thought they were more our thing.