Because the premise of the show was about a ship lost on the other side of the galaxy. Gene Roddenberry doesn't have an opinion about Janeway because he was long dead during the time of Voyagers creation. So bringing him up as a defense holds no weight.
Isn't there a designated area for TOS lovin' on this board...? It is a shame that a thread that was intended as a positive one for Voyager fans gets on this kind of path once again.
I'm sorry you feel that way about Kirk. Last time I check, Paramount Pictures came out with a blockbuster movie called Star Trek this past summer. I wonder why. You said, that Kirk was a piss-poor captain. If he's a piss poor captain, then why did the movie gross $377,160,171 worldwide. Do you honestly think that a Star Trek movie based on Janeway and Voyager would have made this much money? Don't get me wrong, Voyager is good trek, but it can not complete with TOS or the relaunch of the series. The original will always be the best trek. Please do not tell me that the new movie has new actors, a new director, a great script, or anything else for that matter. I'm not buying it. It's the same characters, just a different timeline. In response to your statement on the episode A Private Little War. You need to do some research on the Cold War between the Soviets and The U.S.A. In some countries and regions, notably Guatemala, Iran, the Philippines, and Indochina were often allied with communist groups—or at least were perceived in the West to be allied with communists. In this context, the US and the Soviet Union increasingly competed for influence by proxy in the Third World as decolonization gained momentum in the 1950s and early 1960s, additionally, the Soviets saw continuing losses by imperial powers as presaging the eventual victory of their ideology. The US government utilized the CIA in order to remove a string of unfriendly Third World governments and to support allied ones. The US used the CIA to overthrow governments suspected by Washington of turning pro-Soviet, including Iran's first democratically elected government. By the early 1980s, the USSR had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the United States. Previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons, but the gap had been narrowed. Ronald Reagan began massively building up the United States military not long after taking office. This led to the largest peacetime defense buildup in United States history. So, if the U.S.A. utilized the CIA to remove unfriendly countries from the playing field with or without the sale of weapons, for killing other people. Should the CIA agents or anyone else be arrested for selling or giving weapons to the supported allied side?
Umm... what does that have to do anything about someone not finding Kirk likable or even a good captain or how TOS episodes were written back in the day? I have never really liked Kirk (or Shatner) and I never got into TOS either. So in my case original is far from the best (and best is always subjective in the first place, isn't it?), Voyager taking the cake. I did, however, enjoy the new movie. It was entertaining and fun and I was glad to see the franchise updated in such a manner. Pine's version of Kirk works much better with me than Shatner's.
In this, as with all things, it is important to remember that 50% of the population is of below-average intelligence. Seriously, trying to defend Kirk by using the new Star Trek movie as an example does not work with me because I thought it was a poor movie and that Pine's portrayal of Kirk lacked the main element that I liked about Shatner's version of Kirk; charm. No, because Voyager was neither a particularly good nor popular show. And in case any Voyager fans think I'm attacking the show when I say that, I'm a Niner and I'm well aware that DS9 was not popular and would also have failed to make money at the box office. TOS films make money because the characters and the Enterprise are iconic parts of popular culture, but that does not make the characters morally right when they do dubious things. Since when has popularity ever determined morality? Does the primary rule of the CIA demand non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign states?
For those of you who have forgotten the topic is what do you LIKE about Voyager - not TOS, not Trek Lit but Voyager. Let's get back to topic here.
Why do I like Voyager? I like some of the characters, mainly Paris, Torres, Tuvok, Seven of Nine and the Doctor. I'm not so sure about Janeway, although I blame that on the writers more than on Kate Mulgrew. I like the visual effects, the opening titles and the theme music. The thing about Voyager is that there are a lot of episodes that I find dull, but occasionally they pull something absolutely magic out of the bag, which makes it a frustrating show. This, ultimately, was a show that could not coast - somehow TNG could make entertaining TV out of mediocre material, but Voyager needed to be good to be entertaining, if that makes any sense!
Unfortunately, this is all rubbish. Hey, at least it demonstrates that you simply aren't worth arguing with. Can we move on now?
I liked voyager because it was a fun show and it came on at a time where I really loved Star Trek. Yeah there were some quips with it but I liked the characters for the most part, the episodes and stories, and how some of the relationships developed over the years like Seven and the Doctor and Torres and Tom.
Keep it about the posts and not the poster. You have other options such as not responsing or putting someone on "Ignore".
Or is it because the actual year was 1996, and mentioning that the Eugenics Wars were supposed to be going on was ridiculous, seeing as how we'd barely cloned a sheep at that point? DS9 mentioned the Eugenics Wars, but only said that they'd happened a few hundred years before, while safely in the 24th century, removed from reality. Calling attention to the Augments would have only made the Eugenics Wars seem hokey at best and, at worst, cast a light on the mistakes of TOS. Remembering the date of the Eugenics Wars is easy, as is name dropping it. It takes no respect and no real familiarity with TOS (Khan is, afterall, the movie most known to the common audience). Knowing of the Eugenics Wars and deciding to not belittle their credibility does. As a matter of fact, there is a model of the Botany Bay in Rain's office in that episode. So, no, Voyager was in fact aware of TOS. Just because you didn't like something doesn't mean you have to insult the people behind it.
Hi. In response to your statement about me insulting the people behind the Star Trek Voyager show is both ludicrous and totally vexatious. I do feel that the Voyager episode did in fact belittle the TOS series and movies. That the writers did not care about the Star Trek Cannon and that they were bias and prejudice against TOS. The writers were either trying to separate the show from the rest of the Star Trek universe or simply did not want to deal with the war. That the writers could not deal with any such story, that dealt with 30 million people dieing in a war.You can not justify to me and say that the Eugenics War is not part of the cannon. Having a model of the Botany Bay on a desk in a office is not showing any respect or homage to TOS. Even though you may feel that TOS may have it's mistakes and that is your choice, but take this under consideration. Without TOS, there would have NEVER been a TNG, DS9, Enterprise, or even Voyager. I feel that every Star Trek show that came after TOS should always pay respect and homage to Kirk and his crew.
Now I know why the stereotype of the over zealous Trek fan still exists. However, it would be nice if we could talk about Voyager in the Voyager forum.