DS9 Fans: The Bane of Our Very Existence - Part 9,782

[Anwar]

It was more UPN that screwed up VOY and ENT, less then B&B. Those guys are just easy targets by those who want easy targets.

 

[Gotham Central]

This post actually tried to address the issue honestly. It's wrong, but still, it tried. The generalization is true, there is an element of DS9 fandom that is virulently anti-Voyager and this Voyager hate is somehow fundamental to their love of DS9. Applying generalizations to individuals is a misuse of generalizations, though.

1) Niners like change

Since they obviously wanted stuff more like DS9, this is incorrect, at least as formulated. What they wanted was something that took DS9's politics even further.

2) DS9 fans liked the premise and hated that it was abandoned

The premise of the show is not found in press releases or internet posts, but in the pilot and the first regular episode.
If you actually watch those, most of the criticisms about abandoning the premise are exposed as crazy or grossly stupid.



Star Trek actually changed television scifi. Things like Hill Street Blues, ER, Cops and Survivor changed television storytelling. Putting DS9 above things like that shows the kind of lack of critical judgment required for the hard core Niner faith.



Insofar as a special DS9 hate for Voyager goes, this is insane because Star Trek the series was the only Trek series that wasn't in some degree retrograde.

Things only got worse as we heard what the producers on DS9 went though to get their show made as well as the behind the scenes actions that made the rest of trek an unwelcome place for much of the creative staff of DS9.

In other words, DS9 fans took that insane Moore rant as gospel truth. There are very few "criticisms" of Voyager that don't mindlessly copy that idiotic tract, whether first hand or twelfth hand.

In short, most of the hostility toward Voyager had to do with the show not living up to its potential.

No one hates something for what it isn't, they hate it for what it is. Objectively, DS9, as the first Berman series suffered the most from Berman's lack of experience. DS9 didn't live up to its potential either. Most television shows don't. If a television show has a limited potential (Stargate comes to mind instantly) and lives up to it, people don't give it a shred of credit. So this just isn't true. It's just a self flattering (basically implying "I" have higher standards than you cretins,) excuse.

This post actually tried to address the issue honestly. It's wrong, but still, it tried. The generalization is true, there is an element of DS9 fandom that is virulently anti-Voyager and this Voyager hate is somehow fundamental to their love of DS9. Applying generalizations to individuals is a misuse of generalizations, though.

Wow, I did not know it was possible for someone to be both arrogant and miss the point all at the same time. To suggest that something is WRONG is to imply that you have some special insight that others lack. Given that you are clearly not anti-Voyager, your assertion is dubious at best.

1) Niners like change

Since they obviously wanted stuff more like DS9, this is incorrect, at least as formulated. What they wanted was something that took DS9's politics even further.

This is further proof that you missed the point and fundamentally don't understand the criticism.



So you're really trying to argue that the folks that made and promoted the show did a bait and switch. They sold one sort of show to the fans and viewers and then actually produced something else entirely. That would tend to explain the drop in viewers



Apparently a lack critical analysis is missing from quite a few Voyager fans. Since once more you missed the point. DS9 changed Star Trek, in that it showed that this franchise was perfectly capable of doing more complex storytelling and character development that had ever previously been shown in the franchise. Once fans experience a higher level of quality they are going to demand higher quality from that point forward. experiencing premium Trek only to go back to McTrek soured a lot of people.




Given that DS9 managed to break the mold established by TOS and solidified by TNG, the show this argument does not hold much water. That every other series following DS9 went back to the exact same format and style of storytelling is at the very heart of the criticism of Voyager (and Enterprise). Please see point number one. DS9 fans wanted something new not a retread of the same ground already covered by two previous programs.

In other words, DS9 fans took that insane Moore rant as gospel truth. There are very few "criticisms" of Voyager that don't mindlessly copy that idiotic tract, whether first hand or twelfth hand.

That you think that complaints were limited to Moore shows that you don't know what you are talking about. There is a reason that very few of the DS9 staff moved over to Voyager once DS9 ended. Not only that, but Ira Behr has gone on reccord about some of the arguments that he got into with Berman over content.

In short, most of the hostility toward Voyager had to do with the show not living up to its potential.

No one hates something for what it isn't, they hate it for what it is. Objectively, DS9, as the first Berman series suffered the most from Berman's lack of experience. DS9 didn't live up to its potential either. Most television shows don't. If a television show has a limited potential (Stargate comes to mind instantly) and lives up to it, people don't give it a shred of credit. So this just isn't true. It's just a self flattering (basically implying "I" have higher standards than you cretins,) excuse.

[/QUOTE]

Of course its possible to dislike something for what it is not. Voyager was just warmed over TNG. If they were going to make another TNG, then it would have made much more sense to keep TNG on the air. After all it went out on a high note.

I would argue that Voyager suffered precisely BECAUSE of Berman's experience. Once Berman moved over to Voyager, the folks on DS9, took their concepts and ran with. They pushed the envelope of what could or had been told in the Trek universe. Its should be hardly surprising that the more direct involvement that Berman had on a show, the more it suffered creatively.[/QUOTE]

No one hates something for what it isn't, they hate it for what it is.

It's fun when someone posts something that is a total and blatant contradiction to all known reality.

Of course some things are hated for what they aren't, just as some things are hated for what they are. But this is just a semantic quibble. If you can't envision something being "something else" (what it is not), how can you have any opinion of it at all, to hate it or love it?

DS9 didn't live up to its potential either. Most television shows don't.

None of them do, since anyone with imagination can envision something better than any TV show can ever pull off. DS9 set its standards higher than VOY and the fact that it lived up to them to any degree makes it better than VOY, which set its standards to be nothing much more than old TNG scripts, dusted off and with the proper names changed.

If a television show has a limited potential (Stargate comes to mind instantly) and lives up to it, people don't give it a shred of credit.

Nor should they. The first job of a TV show is to have something they are striving to achieve beyond the same old shit.

This seems to be something that really escapes alot of Voyager fans. The same old shit is exactly what Voyager became and thus was bound to piss off anyone looking for something new. DS9 fans took to the idea that Star Trek was capable of doing a whole lot more than what had been done up to that point. Taken in a vaccum, Voyager is an acceptable, inoffensive little show. However, when viewed in the context of all the Trek that predated the show, it came across as a weak copy of its predecessors.

 

[Gotham Central]

It was more UPN that screwed up VOY and ENT, less then B&B. Those guys are just easy targets by those who want easy targets.

That is a total copout. It gives Berman a weak excuse for shoddy work.

In truth, had Berman, Braga or anyone associated with the show had a genuine cohesive vision of what Voyager should be...they would have found ways to get around UPN. for instance, Ira Behr has tlaked about the number guidelines and restrictions placed on him. He's spoken about the fights that he had with Berman over trying to push the envelope. Because, Behr was committed to making a quality show...he simply worked around the restrictions and told the stories he and his team wanted anyway.

Let us never forget that at the time, DS9 was under the exact same restriction against serialization that restricted Voyager. The difference in that the writers found ways around the restrictions to the point that the show ended up with a remarkable amount of serialization and foreshadowing. For instance, DS9 did not just run across the Dominion and start fighting. There are hints of the Dominion scattered throughout season 2. Indeed, the Dominion's name emerged in a Ferengi comedy episode. Its only in retrospect that you see that a larger story was building despite being shoehorned into an episodic format.

 

[Anwar]

That is a total copout. It gives Berman a weak excuse for shoddy work.

If it had been Ira Behr or Ron Moore who were in Berman's position, you'd agree with me over the UPN interference.

In truth, had Berman, Braga or anyone associated with the show had a genuine cohesive vision of what Voyager should be...they would have found ways to get around UPN.

No they wouldn't.

for instance, Ira Behr has tlaked about the number guidelines and restrictions placed on him. He's spoken about the fights that he had with Berman over trying to push the envelope. Because, Behr was committed to making a quality show...he simply worked around the restrictions and told the stories he and his team wanted anyway.

Behr's a whiner who overstates what he did and how bad he had it.

Let us never forget that at the time, DS9 was under the exact same restriction against serialization that restricted Voyager. The difference in that the writers found ways around the restrictions to the point that the show ended up with a remarkable amount of serialization and foreshadowing.

No, DS9 was syndicated meaning they had no network directly involved. THAT was the core difference.

For instance, DS9 did not just run across the Dominion and start fighting. There are hints of the Dominion scattered throughout season 2. Indeed, the Dominion's name emerged in a Ferengi comedy episode. Its only in retrospect that you see that a larger story was building despite being shoehorned into an episodic format.

It's just double standard. If the Xindi in ENT had been foreshadowed earlier it wouldn't have changed anything. If the Dominion had just shown up at the end of DS9 S2 the reaction would have been the same.

 

[Cyke101]

That is a total copout. It gives Berman a weak excuse for shoddy work.

If it had been Ira Behr or Ron Moore who were in Berman's position, you'd agree with me over the UPN interference.

Isn't this just supposition/personal accusation, though? If Behr or Moore pulled off shoddy work, then they would be rightfully criticized. TV Guide and Time would have been on them on the spot the way they were on Voyager.

In truth, had Berman, Braga or anyone associated with the show had a genuine cohesive vision of what Voyager should be...they would have found ways to get around UPN.

No they wouldn't.

Behr's a whiner who overstates what he did and how bad he had it.

Behr, like Braga, will also fess up to what he believes he himself did wrong as a writer and showrunner, though. And frankly, unless we get counter-commentary from those who were there with Behr, then it pretty much stands. Behr also has something Berman nor Braga had when it came to behind-the-scenes gossip on their respective shows: Majel Barret to reinforce those claims.

 

[stj]

Most of the people who think DS9 was good can't even tell what the Voyager premises are.

Serialization is almost always a sign of bad writing done solely to keep viewers coming back to see what happens. Even the better written shows like Dexter and Breaking Bad show the toll from serialization after only a couple of episodes. DS9 did not improve Trek by adding serialization, insofar as it did. Anyone who wants to drivel about DS9's superior writing is claiming that Redeye Dukat in the Fire Caves is superior drama.

What passes for character development on DS9 is much the same. Redeye Dukat again stands nicely for the level of writing quality DS9 reached.

DS9 set its standards higher than VOY and the fact that it lived up to them to any degree makes it better than VOY, which set its standards to be nothing much more than old TNG scripts, dusted off and with the proper names changed.

Isn't it fun when people say something flatly contrary to reality? DS9 didn't have higher standards, because wanting to serialize an emo story isn't higher standards. DS9 certainly did not achieve a decent serialized story. Nor did it achieve decent character development.

DS9 fans didn't hate Voyager for not being more DS9. That's just why they didn't want to watch it. They hated Voyager because its existence said that DS9 was an artistic failure, unworthy of imitation. Their problem is that DS9 was crap.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

I do tend to think that saying "Show A was so much better than Show B because of x,y and z" is generally a fun and acceptable part of fandom. There's no reason DS9 fans can't pick apart Voyager and Voyager fans can't pick apart DS9 without being slammed as "haters" who are prejudiced against the other show and hate its fans. It's all just a bit of fun really, isn't it?

 

[Thestral]

Serialization is almost always a sign of bad writing done solely to keep viewers coming back to see what happens. Even the better written shows like Dexter and Breaking Bad show the toll from serialization after only a couple of episodes.

What? Really? Seriously? Serialization is "bad writing?" I think Charles Dickens would like a word with you. And then Sheherazade. And Homer. And Virgil. And Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. And C.S. Lewis. And J.R.R. Tolkien. And Madeleine L'Engle. And Steven King. And...

DS9 did not improve Trek by adding serialization, insofar as it did. Anyone who wants to drivel about DS9's superior writing is claiming that Redeye Dukat in the Fire Caves is superior drama.

Mmm... unlikely. I think they'd be talking instead about, for example, Duet. Or The Visitor. Or the Cardassian arc of The Final Chapter. You'll be happy to know that Redeye Dukat is proudly soundly dismissed by many Niners (I am not one of those who does, however).

What passes for character development on DS9 is much the same. Redeye Dukat again stands nicely for the level of writing quality DS9 reached.

Yes, clearly they couldn't be talking about the evolution of, for example, Nog. Or Kira. Or Sisko. Or Bashir. C'mon, if you're gonna counterbash the (needlessly vindictive and clearly often biased) bashing of Voyager, you could at least be sensible about it.

DS9 didn't have higher standards, because wanting to serialize an emo story isn't higher standards. DS9 certainly did not achieve a decent serialized story. Nor did it achieve decent character development.

Emphasized to ask: What does that even mean?

Also, I'm glad you're the objective source of truth on what makes a decent serialized story or decent character development, clearly all us Niners have been living in ignorance...

DS9 fans didn't hate Voyager for not being more DS9. That's just why they didn't want to watch it. They hated Voyager because its existence said that DS9 was an artistic failure, unworthy of imitation. Their problem is that DS9 was crap.

(emphasis mine)

Yeah, you're doing a bang-up job proving us Niners of your superiority and our wretchedness. Because if there's one thing DS9 was panned for throughout its tenure, it was "artistic failure." God bless Voyager for showing us the way!

 

[stj]

DS9 fans didn't hate Voyager for not being more DS9. That's just why they didn't want to watch it. They hated Voyager because its existence said that DS9 was an artistic failure, unworthy of imitation. Their problem is that DS9 was crap.

(emphasis mine)

Yeah, you're doing a bang-up job proving us Niners of your superiority and our wretchedness. Because if there's one thing DS9 was panned for throughout its tenure, it was "artistic failure." God bless Voyager for showing us the way!

The sentence you bolded is not what you object to. For instance, if DS9 really was good, and Voyager really was so much worse, the return to an episodic, ship based format was indeed a rejection of DS9 artistic achievement and this would be an insult to Niner fans' artistic sensibilities. Which would be a far better reason for resenting Voyager than that wasted potential BS. I surmise that in fact you would agree if you had actually understood what you were reading.

At a guess, you would have bolded the final statement to mark what you disagree with. Of course, in the context of the thread which is not about DS9, the contrary assertion stands out. Ignorant posts about Voyager being TNG with the names changed are acceptable, so singling mine out make you look funny.

 

[TheGodBen]

Story Arcs would have turned off the common joe viewers VOY was going for, a growing cast wouldn't have made sense since the show was about a small ship and not an entire quadrant (plus it would've cost too much money). This is merely the double standard VOY gets: If they HAD created recurring characters for VOY in terms of the aliens encountered, the viewers would just complain that for a ship on the move it makes no sense to run into the same aliens and it would MONUMENTALLY stupid to run into the same INDIVIDUAL characters over and over again. It's just unfair double standard at work.

When most people say that Voyager should have more secondary characters we're not talking about recurring villains, we're talking about crewmembers onboard Voyager. We're talking about Lt Carey who mysteriously disappeared, Chell who showed up once or twice, or crewman Harren who was great and I would have loved to have seen more of. We want to see Voyager as a community, not nine people who call themselves a family and seem to exclude everybody else for some reason.

In other words, DS9 fans took that insane Moore rant as gospel truth. There are very few "criticisms" of Voyager that don't mindlessly copy that idiotic tract, whether first hand or twelfth hand.

I'd like to point out that I only read the famous Moore interview six months ago, long after I had come to similar (but not replica) conclusions on my own. I didn't even know who Moore was until 4 years ago when I bought the DS9 and TNG DVDs and started paying attention to the writing credits. Can everybody stop accusing everybody else of being sheep, please?

It was more UPN that screwed up VOY and ENT, less then B&B. Those guys are just easy targets by those who want easy targets.

See, we agree on something again. Berman possibly deserves some of the flak he gets but certainly not all of it, whereas Braga normally came up with good ideas (Threshold excluded) and he often succeeded in writing great episodes. UPN were the ones that nixed a lot of the ideas, such as the season-long Year of Hell, or the idea of doing Enterprise's first season on Earth while the ship is being built.

Most of the people who think DS9 was good can't even tell what the Voyager premises are.

A small Federation starship lost alone in a hostile area of space (Kazon, Vidiians) with a mixed crew of Starfleet officers and Maquis freedom-fighters.

Did I get it right?

Serialization is almost always a sign of bad writing done solely to keep viewers coming back to see what happens.

Oh good lords.

When you read a book, do you like it to have chapters which tell a singular story that eventually builds to a powerful conclusion, or do you prefer the chapters to be completely unrelated and telling different stories that don't go anywhere specific? Personally, I prefer books which don't have chapters at all, but I don't think that would work with a TV series.

Their problem is that DS9 was crap.

That's your opinion and you're perfectly free to have it, just don't try to pass it off as fact.

 

[TheGodBen]

The sentence you bolded is not what you object to. For instance, if DS9 really was good, and Voyager really was so much worse, the return to an episodic, ship based format was indeed a rejection of DS9 artistic achievement and this would be an insult to Niner fans' artistic sensibilities. Which would be a far better reason for resenting Voyager than that wasted potential BS.

You do realise that Enterprise's episodic format was a critical failure, and a failure in terms of ratings, right? And you know what they did when B&B got desperate? They called up Ira Steven Behr, asked him to explain what he felt was wrong with the show and they eventually decided to go the serialisation route. It was still a ratings failure, but critically those final two seasons were much better regarded.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Guy Gardener]

Voyager is only a girl show via the definition that it has no balls.

Well maybe it has a ball, but DS9 has almost 8.

DS9 had much Stronger female characters too, so .

 

[stj]

You do realise that Enterprise's episodic format was a critical failure, and a failure in terms of ratings, right? And you know what they did when B&B got desperate? They called up Ira Steven Behr, asked him to explain what he felt was wrong with the show and they eventually decided to go the serialisation route. It was still a ratings failure, but critically those final two seasons were much better regarded.

Why do you think that is?

DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were all ratings failures in the sense that they consistently lost audience from the TNG high. Third season Enterprise was serialized precisely to try to keep an audience, which is why I said shows were serialized. It was serialized better than DS9, which shows Berman's increasing experience. None of this contradicts me, which means you're argumentative for no reason.

The notion that Enterprise was more critically praised during its last two seasons is confusing the bbs groupthink with the wider world. Third season Enterprise marked a distinct drop in quality. Fourth season Enterprise, when Berman and Braga were essentially pushed aside, was ghastly. After that I was glad Trek was dead.

Ira Steven Behr's subsequent career at Bob Patterson, The Twilight Zone and The 4400 shows that he has distinctly limited talents. And I was one of sixty two people who watched The 4400, too. It was very frustrating to get glimmers of interesting topics screwed up by incompetent writing. In other words, I have no idea why someone would ask Behr for advice.

A small Federation starship lost alone in a hostile area of space (Kazon, Vidiians) with a mixed crew of Starfleet officers and Maquis freedom-fighters.

Did I get it right?

That's not what you really think the premise is. You actually buy into limited resources, Maquis resistance and such nonsense. I enjoy reading your reviews because they're inadvertently funny. You have extremely limited comprehension. Why do you troll at such extraordinary lengths? There's nothing at issue besides a TV show. When there are real issues, people like you can't wait to stop reading, much less answering.

When you read a book, do you like it to have chapters which tell a singular story that eventually builds to a powerful conclusion, or do you prefer the chapters to be completely unrelated and telling different stories that don't go anywhere specific? Personally, I prefer books which don't have chapters at all, but I don't think that would work with a TV series.

In a novel, if the end is screwed up, the whole novel is screwed up. On the other hand, I have enjoyed collections of short stories, such as the Foundation series, just to cite a famous example. DS9 and BSG and The 4400 and St. Elsewhere and Roseanne and practically every serialized show comes to a dreadful end. Pretending the alternative is some mythical powerful climax is just more BS.

 

[Anwar]

When most people say that Voyager should have more secondary characters we're not talking about recurring villains,

Oh, yes you are. What's one of the central complaints over VOY's aliens? Too episodic, too many "of the weeks". Then when they DID have recurring villains like Cullah and Seska it was just another negative reaction. It's just double standard wherein VOY gets hated for not doing something and then hated for doing it.

we're talking about crewmembers onboard Voyager. We're talking about Lt Carey who mysteriously disappeared

Too much money to bring back too often.

, Chell who showed up once or twice

Too much money to bring back.

, or crewman Harren who was great and I would have loved to have seen more of.

Too much money to bring back.

We want to see Voyager as a community, not nine people who call themselves a family and seem to exclude everybody else for some reason.

Too much money, with BSG it was made in Canada and thus could get away with paying less for its extras and the like. Plus recurring characters would have confused the common viewer too much who missed the intro episode for these people. Would have cost the show viewers.

 

[RyuRoots]

Voyager fan and diehard DS9 fan here.

I can only speak for myself, but what gets me about Voyager is that a lot of the things that really could've made it a more unique show ere tossed out an airlock before the third season. It does have some really great episodes that ONLY could've been done on Voyager like Scorpion or Year of Hell, both of which are fantastic. But there ARE stretches of the show that do feel like TNG 2.

I think mostly it's that Voyager looks bad comparatively. I don't think it's an AMAZING show, but a good one once they find their groove. That took longer than TNG and DS9. The Maquis and resource issues faded into nothingness pretty early. On the other hand, the eccentricities of DS9 (the station) took getting used to by the main cast before they were really able to settle in, and their position in Bajoran and Cardassian affairs was something they ran with and made a big part of the show. Ultimately, I think it comes down to that between the two shows, Voyager tended to play it safe and DS9 took more chances, and it paid off in DS9's case. I also find DS9's cast more engaging, but that's more subjective.

And Anwar, in Culluh's case, I think it was because he wasn't a very good villain. It is possible to do something people want, but then not do such a great job at it.

tl;dr ver: VOY suffered from some bad handling at times, but I like both.

 

[Anwar]

I doubt it, like I've told others if VOY had created a Delta Federation early on and the Dominion was THEIR archfoe for most of the series and EVERYTHING was the same as DS9 in terms of writing the whole thing would be considered Trek's worst stories for daring to challenge Fed ideals and the Dominion would be ridiculed as a VOY creation and therefore unworthy of respect.

Meanwhile on DS9 we'd have Sisko defeating the Borg all the time with Runabouts and everyone would love it.

 

[Guy Gardener]

A runabout, an ace up his sleeve, a cunning plan and a bit of luck.

Janeway by season 6 was standing against the Borg as a matter of general consumption with just her ordinary standard issue ware form the Quartermaster.

 

[Anwar]

Like I said, Sisko trashing the Borg all on his own with a runabout is okay. Janeway doing it with a starship is a no-no. Why? Because Sisko is from DS9 and the fandom is a-okay with anything DS9 does.

 

[Thestral]

DS9 fans didn't hate Voyager for not being more DS9. That's just why they didn't want to watch it. They hated Voyager because its existence said that DS9 was an artistic failure, unworthy of imitation. Their problem is that DS9 was crap.

(emphasis mine)

The sentence you bolded is not what you object to. For instance, if DS9 really was good, and Voyager really was so much worse, the return to an episodic, ship based format was indeed a rejection of DS9 artistic achievement and this would be an insult to Niner fans' artistic sensibilities. Which would be a far better reason for resenting Voyager than that wasted potential BS. I surmise that in fact you would agree if you had actually understood what you were reading. At a guess, you would have bolded the final statement to mark what you disagree with.

I do indeed object to the sentence I bolded, Mr. Psychic, because I object to you saying that A. DS9 was an artistic failure and B. I object to your implication that Voyager was created as intentional move away from DS9-style Star Trek. And it's clearly not just an implication based on your follow-up.

Who's here saying Voyager was "really so much worse?" One person? Who suddenly speaks for all Niners clearly. Are there a minor, extremist subset of Niners who took it as a personal affront that Voyager returned to generally-episodic ship based storytelling? Certainly. But there's also a minor extremist subset of Trek fans who believe that DS9 is not Star Trek because it's not generally-episodic and ship-based. Guess what? Neither group represents Trek fans as a whole. Most of us like both settings and both styles in greater or lesser degrees.

That "wasted potential BS" is in fact why many fans of Trek feel that Voyager could have been better. How can you sit there and say "actually, you're lying. Or ignorant."

You've gone through here and insulted GodBen's and my intelligence multiple times now, and frankly I expect better outside TNZ.

Of course, in the context of the thread which is not about DS9, the contrary assertion stands out. Ignorant posts about Voyager being TNG with the names changed are acceptable, so singling mine out make you look funny.

What does that first sentence even mean? And no, ignorant posts about VOY being TNG with names changed are not acceptable, but I suspect that there's a good number of people on this forum who can work to disabuse people of that notion, which I why I didn't target it.

That's not what you really think the premise is. You actually buy into limited resources, Maquis resistance and such nonsense. I enjoy reading your reviews because they're inadvertently funny. You have extremely limited comprehension. Why do you troll...?

(emphasis mine)

And what's so "nonsensical" about believing a story with limited resources and Maquis resistance?

In a novel, if the end is screwed up, the whole novel is screwed up. On the other hand, I have enjoyed collections of short stories, such as the Foundation series, just to cite a famous example. DS9 and BSG and The 4400 and St. Elsewhere and Roseanne and practically every serialized show comes to a dreadful end. Pretending the alternative is some mythical powerful climax is just more BS.

Or indictive that you're selecting carefully against serialized drama that you dislike and presenting your subjective opinions as facts. You might find it worth noting that the "mythical powerful climax" doesn't come at the end of the story - there is at least some amount of denoument. And maybe people aren't looking for mythical powerful climaxes, but rather the completion of the story. "Pretending the alternative is some dreadful ending for all serialized television is just more BS."

Oh, yes you are. What's one of the central complaints over VOY's aliens... when they DID have recurring villains like Cullah and Seska it was just another negative reaction. It's just double standard wherein VOY gets hated for not doing something and then hated for doing it.

Or, you know, it might've been because some fans feel Culluh and Seska were done poorly as recurring villains. Just like Red-Eyed Dukat often gets lambasted for being a poorly-done recurring villain in many circles.

...Lt Carey...

Too much money to bring back too often.

Too much money to bring back.

, or crewman Harren...

Too much money to bring back.

We want to see Voyager as a community, not nine people who call themselves a family and seem to exclude everybody else for some reason.

Too much money...

Bollocks and bullhockey. If DS9 could do it consistently, including with an Oscar-winning actress, and as a syndicated show, then there's absolutely no reason Voyager couldn't have done so as the flagship program of the United Paramount Network.

Plus recurring characters would have confused the common viewer too much who missed the intro episode for these people. Would have cost the show viewers.

I'm glad you have such a high opinion of your fellow viewer. Tell me, were recurring characters ever a problem for Seventh Heaven or ER, ever cost them viewers?

Like I said, Sisko trashing the Borg all on his own with a runabout is okay. Because Sisko is from DS9 and the fandom is a-okay with anything DS9 does.

No. No it's really not and would be roundly criticized. Perhaps you've missed the number of people whose reaction to a (literal) deus ex machina in "Sacrifice of Angels" was ?

Nobody trashing the Borg all on his/her lonesome would be okay, barring some sort of Q-like ascension, and even that would be met with .

 

[Anwar]

Paramount wanted VOY to be something they could use as episodic TV to easily sell into syndication to make up for money lost on DS9. So no, replicating part of what made DS9 lose money didn't enter the equation. Not unless they were SURE it would work and they'd get more revenue. They couldn't be sure and thus wouldn't do it. And considering how the fandom was out to get them, they were justified.

As for ER and 7th Heaven, they aren't Sci-fi and thus have more viewers.

People say that what happened in Sacrifice of Angels worked out great with Sisko's own story with the Prophets, so they'd have no problem with him taking out the Borg like nothing. They'd welcome it because it would be a TNG creation being beaten. Picard defeating Dominion soldiers would have had them howling their guts out over the silliness of it all, though. Double Standard and all that.