Let's not get into semantics. The fact is, I did not want the ship to become a wreck unable to get past warp 5.
So this is what you've been reduced to? Rolly eye smilies?
You appear to be suggesting that I don't know my own opinion, would you care to share how you have more knowledge of my inner thoughts than I do?
]Neither did I want the ship to remain in pristine condition. Somewhere between the two extremes would have been nice, do not forget a place between extremes exist.
And like I'm saying, with their technology and the abundance of aliens in the Trekverse, it still wouldn't be like that.
You want the ship to get trashed like that then set the show in a universe where there aren't any aliens and their tech isn't capable of dealing with minor repairs. Otherwise in Trek it's not going to happen.
WHERE DID I SAY I WANTED THE SHIP TO BE TRASHED!?????
You are once again putting words in my mouth.
I wanted the ship to have some wear and tear and not always have an easy time getting repaired. I certainly didn't want massive damage to the ship to be repaired between shows.
Why are you incapable of reading what I have written and processing the information reasonably, what is your malfunction?
Tensions = bad blood/relations, which logically leads to mutual hatred.
I'm starting to wonder if you have ever experienced human-human interaction or if all your experiences of humanity are seen through daytime soap operas.
In real life tension can exist without turning into hatred.
-I did not call for a mutiny.
That's where tensions between factions trapped together lead to.
Do you have evidence from the last 5000 years of human history to show that every single time civilised people with different beliefs get trapped in the same situation, murder and mutiny occurs?
No, I didn't think so.
All I wanted was to see the two different factions struggle with their differences and then find some new ground and eventually become one crew. I wanted to see this on screen and I didn't want it to only be covered in two episodes.
If you were willing to loosen morals in the first place, it only shows you weren't a moral person to begin with and it'd only be easier to loosen them more and more until they're not there at all. While the story of a bunch of folks who were supposed to have some morality turning into a bunch of savages might appeal to some, it doesn't fit in Trek. Go watch something else.
Poor, predictable Anwar. Once again you revert to hyperbole and exaggeration to attempt to win an argument rather than actually discussing the issue at and.
I wanted the crew to become more pragmatic in their search for a way home, Tuvok's actions in "Prime Factors" are exactly the type of actions I am talking about in the context of the show.
Changing your view on your own principles in the name of pragmatism =/= turning into savage cannibals.
If you can't see that, then I suggest you open your door and go outside to experience the real world.
Pretty much, the others had some fans but every attempt at developing them was met with negativity by the audience for whatever silly reason they had to dislike the characters. The Doc and Seven were exempt due to blatant favoritism even though this was mainly due to the development they got. Basically, the audience screwed themselves with the characters and got what they deserved.
I'm awaiting evidence that some fans disliking "Thirty Days" or "Nemesis" led to Chakotay and Paris being sidelined.
And I'm saying that if you did that, rather than praise or ANYTHING good the audience would just whine that 5 wasn't enough.
Its possible some people may whine, but its certain that there would be less people complaining about lack of secondary character development when there are around 5 in the show.
This is basic logic, it seems you'd make a terrible Vulcan.
It's the truth enough, the characters in the main cast were already the most important ones to the show and to the ship. Your "secondary characters" stories would be the equivalent of watching a bunch of janitors.
I personally would have loved to see how Samantha Wildman balanced being a single mother and member of the crew. A good and attentive writer could have fleshed out her character tremendously.
I'm also failing to see your "the main characters were the only important people on Voyager", the only reason it appears that way is because it was written that way and it seemed implausible even then That Neelix would be going on dangerous missions when he was only the cook and the rest of the crew were barely every involved in anything ever.
Good writers would have made the ship a more believable ship by showing us some of the lives of the others on board and how they dealt with being years from home and trapped in a dangerous part of space. I think I will rest this point here, the vast majority of people here agree with me which should tell you something and should certainly encourage you to reevaluate your opinion.
is it just your (slightly wacky) opinion that had the writers rectified problems fans had with the show that they fans still would have hated it?
They would still have hated it, bottom line.
Sorry, I had no idea you had the ability to see into parallel universes.
The fandom tore into the show 30 minutes into "Caretaker" and have never let up, to this day. I've witnessed it for the last 15 years since I watched the show when it began.
Maybe, just
maybe a lot of people didn't like it because of the problems that have been discussed here? Its a totally "out there" idea but hopefully you can see the logic in it.
And they didn't like the development, even back then.
Ah, Anwar speaks for every single person who has ever watched Voyager, well done. Are you forming some sort of hive mind with all of us that we're not aware of?
Moore is just another whiner, like Ira Behr. And by S4 the writers had gotten into the only pattern of writing the audience seemed to hate less than what they were doing beforehand.
Whether Moore is a "whiner" (real mature there) or not is besides the question. He worked on the show and was told by the writing staff that they had "given up on B'Ellana a long time ago". This isn't acceptable conduct for good tv writers and shows the systemic problems within the Voyager staff.
You claim it was because the writers were hanging on every single word of forumers (unlikely) and only writing for the characters people seemed to like. This is possible but it doesn't excuse them from totally avoiding even character development like good tv writers should be aiming for.
You appear to classify anyone who wanted at least an iota more conflict on the show to be a mutiny supporter even if they explicitly said they didn't want to see a mutiny (e.g. me) so we can take your words with a pinch of salt here.
And I pointed out above that your preference for the show WOULD'VE led the a mutiny anyways.
1. As I pointed out, two groups with different beliefs together doesn't always lead to mutiny and murder, if you think otherwise you really need to get a clue.
A couple of years ago I shared an apartment with 5 other people and there was a lot of tension there, guess what. No one murdered anyone! We came to a COMPROMISE and we WORKED THROUGH OUR DIFFICULTIES.
Humans are capable of that just as much as murder, and certainly the future beings of Trek.
All I wanted to see was the characters work through their differences and come to a compromise on screen.
I wonder if you're getting this yet
So they chose to be subtle rather than blatant in in-your-face over the matter, closer to reality, and still get slammed for not being realistic enough. And people wonder why I have a problem with how whiny Voy detractors are.
By subtle, you actually mean they didn't deal with it whatsoever. We, the viewer only saw what was on screen, it is ridiculously lazy to not address the issue whatsoever and hope the viewer assumed it all worked out off camera.
Its like Sylar becoming "good" off camera in "Heroes" and no one mentioning how.
They were planning on forming their own nation, with their own armed services. A bunch of ragtag rebels don't do that, an organized service with rules and regulations for its members do.
Since when do rebels not plan on forming their own nation?
The whole freaking point of rebels on earth is to overthrow governements and form their own government and nation instead. The communist rebels in Pre-Civil War China were organised and their aim was to make China communist forming their own nation of the People's Republic of China.
You should really read over what you wrote because this is definitely the most nonsensical statement you have made so far, you should be embarrassed.
Because that's what Starfleet DOES, make contact with new species. They never bothered explaining what the Maquis way was in the first place. In ANY of the shows.
I seem to remember a quite clear explanation in both TNG and DS9, maybe you missed those episodes.
And what was wrong with taking a new approach to alien encounters combining the Starfleet regulations and the more pragmatic Maquis approach?
The episode "Random Thoughts" comes to mind. Janeway was willing to let some aliens give B'Ellana a harmful lobotomy, what was wrong with straying away from Starfleet regulations and using a more useful one since they were 60, 000 lightyears from the Federation?
The blend of Maquis (who were distinct in their approaches to Starfleeter no matter what you may claim) and Starfleet officers on board Voyager was part of the whole premise of the show and we should have seen a compromise between the two sets of beliefs
We didn't see it in every episode in a totally blatant way, you mean. It was a Fleet ship, it was crewed mainly be Fleeters, the Maquis way were never established in the first place as radically different from the Feds, the Maquis should've been grateful Janeway didn't lock them up for their criminal activities. There wasn't much to compromise over to begin with.
I think it was made quite clear than in all the essays dealing with the Maquis across TNG/DS9 and the Maquis episodes in Voyager that the Maquis operated quite differently from Starfleeters. I'm sorry that you can't see this.
She got over it.
She died.
They got over it.
My point was that most of the Maquis were not Starfleet, contrary to your belief.
Was it so much to ask that we saw how some more of the Maquis "got over it" through the course of the show? Since, you know, it was HALF THE PREMISE of the entire show?
I thought there were issues with VOY's very premise that needed to be changed, frankly. But this whole debate is just the usual VOY-bashing I've grown so disgusted with and been countering for a while now.
Voyager's premise was sound, its execution was not.
As for your opinion that this has all been "Voyager bashing", well I'm not even sure how to respond to this. All that people have been doing is pointing out the flaws in Voyager and suggesting ways to improve the show. I'm not sure why you attach the word "bashing" to this activity. Surely "bashing" would be a thread asking to list everything Voyager had done wrong and even then, that would be more than allowed under the forum guidelines.
You need to get over your bizarre love for Voyager and the need to defend it like it was a person.
I mean seriously, why even have a crew then? why make such a big deal out of "GETTING MY PEOPLE HOME!". In B5 you get stories about the the lower sectors, dock workers, fighter pilots stationed their, markets, ops, ambassadors, black market smugglers, etc etc. It just makes you get a sense that it is an actual station, that is not difficult to understand. Hell, it's not like they don't have time to tell their story, there supposed to be going on what a 70 year journey.
). Vorik was a typical Vulcan, nothing more. Tal Celes was a clumsy, unconfident underachiever, nothing more. Owen Paris wanted to see his son again, nothing more.
