Did Voyager's premise inherently hold it back?

[Anwar]

The writers realized, like you and I do, that it WOULD indeed be silly to use the Borg in every episode and tried their hardest to not use them that much. However, their best efforts failed and they lost out to the audience's demands by including more Borg as the show went on. They kept trying to the bitter end to avoid it but it was no use by that point.

I applaud their efforts, for they were creative and full of potential, but said potential was never given a fair chance and thus squashed.

 

[RyuRoots]

The writers realized, like you and I do, that it WOULD indeed be silly to use the Borg in every episode and tried their hardest to not use them that much. However, their best efforts failed and they lost out to the audience's demands by including more Borg as the show went on. They kept trying to the bitter end to avoid it but it was no use by that point.

I applaud their efforts, for they were creative and full of potential, but said potential was never given a fair chance and thus squashed.

Dude, "tried their hardest not to use them that much" is not the same as "used them over triple as much as TNG" Additionally, "trying to the bitter end to avoid it" is kind of a hilarious way to put it since the "bitter end" used the Borg.

Never given a chance by the mysterious "they", and your hatedom that doesn't exist, I presume.

 

[Withers]

The writers realized, like you and I do, that it WOULD indeed be silly to use the Borg in every episode and tried their hardest to not use them that much. However, their best efforts failed and they lost out to the audience's demands by including more Borg as the show went on. They kept trying to the bitter end to avoid it but it was no use by that point.

They used the Borg for the "bitter end" but you want me to believe they tried to use them sparingly all the way up to that point? Get outta here. The Borg were an easy ratings grab at first. It's as simple as that. I can even excuse a bunch of Borg appearances because they were in the Delta Quadrant. I cannot excuse, however, the way that they were portrayed each time.

I applaud their efforts, for they were creative and full of potential, but said potential was never given a fair chance and thus squashed.

Are you re-writing the lyrics to 'Battle Hymn of the Republic' or trying to make a point? If an audience had enough power to force the writers and producers of the show to write what they did why wasn't that same power enough to keep Enterprise on the air? (You don't have to answer that... or anything else for that matter.)



-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

Because at the time more people hated ENT than liked it. It was only after the show was done that they were willing to look back and realized "Wow, you know this isn't bad. It's actually good. Too bad we were such jerks about every little detail when it was on."

As for "Endgame" that was more Ken Biller giving Berman and Braga one last "F You" when the show was over (he admitted he had no idea how to end the show).

 

[CoveTom]

I am officially retiring from this thread at this point, because it is utterly and completely pointless to continue.

 

[RyuRoots]

Because at the time more people hated ENT than liked it. It was only after the show was done that they were willing to look back and realized "Wow, you know this isn't bad. It's actually good. Too bad we were such jerks about every little detail when it was on."

As for "Endgame" that was more Ken Biller giving Berman and Braga one last "F You" when the show was over (he admitted he had no idea how to end the show).

Or...people just...watched the show and didn't care for it? I know, I know, it's really hard for you to understand, but that DOES happen sometimes. Most people think NEM sucked. Most people think TWOK was good. A lot of people simply didn't like ENT, Anwar. Or are you going to say now that everyone who ever disliked anything Trek is in the hatedom?

As for people that came up and liked ENT after it went off the air, there ARE people who watch shows not on their initial runs, which has been the case for me as well.

And huh. Well, whatever reason it was for, the ending is what it is (a non-ending, if you ask me).

 

[Anwar]

After "Lord of the Rings" and NuBSG, I'm happy NOT to have one of those extended endings that just go on and on...

 

[RyuRoots]

After "Lord of the Rings" and NuBSG, I'm happy NOT to have one of those extended endings that just go on and on...

I believe you missed the point of what I was trying to say. I don't mean it should've been longer. I mean that I felt nothing got resolved. What will happen to the ex-Maquis? Will Paris and his dad finally make peace properly? What will happen to The Doctor? or Seven? And I personally wanted to see Tuvok reunited with his family and Janeway meet with the Admiralty in person.

These things and more were not given a moment's thought. That's what I meant by a "non-ending".

 

[Saito S]

Saito, are you really going to bring up the Borg thing again? You never did give me a straight counter to the "Voyager can't survive the Borg" thing aside from "get creative" or "why not?"

aside from "get creative" or "why not?"

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3847030&postcount=13

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3849280&postcount=20

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3849555&postcount=22

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3850167&postcount=25

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3852870&postcount=41

In a straight-up confrontation (and given how constrained VOY's premise made it, there wasn't really an alternative to that), that is. And no, the answer wasn't "then don't use the Borg much!" either!

Except that Voyager's premise wasn't constrained in the least. A fact that has been backed up by mountains of solid reasoning. I even provided some words by Rick Berman. Where's your reasoning or evidence that the premise really was THAT specific and THAT constricting? We've only asked you to provide it twenty or thirty times now.

I haven't given proper reasoning? What do you consider proper reasoning because I've explained my stance on the premise many times these last few days.

You haven't "explained your stance" even ONCE. All you've done is repeat what you believe the premise to be, not provide any solid reasoning as to WHY you believe it to be so. Repetition =! reasoning or explanation.

Janeway DID say in the first episode that they'd be going around looking for whatever they could to ease their journey. This is what led to the exploring for the sake of exploring, which the Maquis whined about because they figured a direct bee-line home was more effective. They're both of the "get home as fast as we can" argument, just had some time reconciling just how to.

Nope.

The "exploring for the sake of exploring" was established as its OWN secondary objective, separate from the main objective of getting home. Then, she threw in "and hopefully, exploring for the sake of exploring will lead to ways to get us home that don't involve a 70-year journey."

"And as the only Starfleet vessel assigned to the Delta Quadrant, we'll continue to follow our directive: to seek out new worlds and explore space."

She puts the exploring in the context of "because we're Starfleet." Ergo, exploring for the sake of exploring, since that is what Starfleet DOES.

"But our primary goal is clear. Even at maximum speeds, it would take 75 years to reach the Federation. But I'm not willing to settle for that. There's another entity like the Caretaker out there somewhere who has the ability to get us there much faster. We'll be looking for her. And we'll be looking for wormholes, spacial rifts, or new technologies to help us. Somewhere along this journey we'll find a way back."

The decision to explore for its own sake leads to the idea that they might find things along the way to help them get home quicker, not the other way around. If they were REALLY trying to get home as fast as possible "at any cost", they would just point toward home and GO, and only stop to explore something that SHOWED up front that it had the potential to help them get home faster, and only if said thing were not very far out of their way.

At this point, the idea that "the premise constrained them! They COULDN'T do better because the premise wouldn't allow it!" is bunk. It has been completely demolished in this thread, whether you see that or not, and you have not provided a SHRED of solid reasoning to back up your belief that your version of the premise was, in fact, the premise that the writers were working with, or that it was THAT binding. Therefore, "it wasn't bad writing, it was the constraints of the premise" is no longer a valid response to any further points of debate as far as I'm concerned. Unless you can ELABORATE a hell of a lot more than you've done, I'm not going to even bother responding anymore if that's all you've got.

Thank you, goodnight.

Oh! Almost forgot: the "hatedom", as you describe it, is a figment of your imagination.

 

[Jetfire]

The premise open the show up to any adventure the writers could come up with...they fell short in many ways. VOY is still my fav along with TNG...never like DS9 and TOS was good, but not my cup of tea...I like ENT alot and is right behind VOY & TNG...for me.

 

[Guy Gardener]

As for "Endgame" that was more Ken Biller giving Berman and Braga one last "F You" when the show was over (he admitted he had no idea how to end the show).

Four words: Ko bay yashi maru.

 

[indolover]

The premise held it back?

Yes.

The premise of Voyager was arguably the best in all Trek series, period. It was pure Trek; to boldly go where no one has gone before.

No, it was "We're stuck far from home in a place where everyone strong enough wants to kill us for some reason. We can't replenish supplies and every scientific exploration we do is just to shave as much time as we can off our trip the hell out of here and back to safety."

- Poor enemies, as has been touched upon earlier in the thread. How come the Voyager could lick up the Borg, yet both the Enterprises D and E could not?

Because VOY had nowhere to escape to, and no one to back them up, and no technical wizardry to defend themselves with. Thus the plot had to be shaped in a way that got them out alive and without too much damage or death because the story couldn't afford to do that.

What help/assistance did the Enterprise D get in BoBW? It didn't partake in Wolf 359. It luckily (and if we're being honest, was close to ramming itself into the Borg Cube) defeated the Borg in BoBW. In First Contact, Picard and co. had to single-handedly travel back in time, in order to defeat the Borg. Again, what help was there from any other Federation starship?

 

[Anwar]

In BOBW the Borg's primary objective was to get to Earth, so it made sense to ignore the ENT-D when it attacked them and got Locutus. Then they used him and Data (two important things VOY didn't have) for the technical wizardry part.

In FC they needed that armada and Picard's remaining connection to the Collective to defeat the Cube, the ENT-E was a lot tougher than VOY was which is why they were able to destroy that small and weak sphere. And even then the Borg on the ship were defeated by Picard (who got that far in thanks to his prior relationship with the Queen) and Data.

I'll reply to Saito later today, I have to get to work soon.

 

[indolover]

In FC, Picard almost self-destructed the ship, prior to rescuing Data. In BoBW, the Enterprise was the sole line of defence between Earth and the Borg. It really was touch and go, yet both Enterprises D and E barely came through, yet a tactically inferior ship did not.

And in VOY, they had 7 of 9, who like Picard was also assimilated.

I'm not debating again, since this probably would go around in circles. For what it is worth, I liked Voyager, since it had some well-written episodes. Like I said, before top-heavy/imbalanced character development, and the poor portrayal of enemies spoilt it.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Because at the time more people hated ENT than liked it. It was only after the show was done that they were willing to look back and realized "Wow, you know this isn't bad. It's actually good. Too bad we were such jerks about every little detail when it was on."

So those of us who didn't like Enterprise felt that way because we were jerks and obsessed over little details? Look, I didn't care about retcons, I didn't care about whether the technology looked too futuristic, I didn't care if the ship looked like something we saw flying around in the background in The Changing Face of Evil. All I wanted was interesting characters and good stories. For me, Enterprise didn't deliver those things, so I didn't like it.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Well, they were the morons who thought T'Pol was hotter than Hoshi, even when one of them is in overalls and the other gal is shoe horned into a sex suit.

By the time of Enterprise, TPTB had no idea who their audience was or how to provide for their needs.

 

[Anwar]

Except that Voyager's premise wasn't constrained in the least. A fact that has been backed up by mountains of solid reasoning. I even provided some words by Rick Berman. Where's your reasoning or evidence that the premise really was THAT specific and THAT constricting?

It was about a crew of people lost from home, without a single friend in the universe, going home as fast as they could. Frequent criticisms are that the ship shouldn't have been repairable and that they wasted too much time exploring. Now, if exploring and being able to gain the outer support needed for repairs was a part of the show's premise WOULD THEY STILL COMPLAIN?

You haven't "explained your stance" even ONCE. All you've done is repeat what you believe the premise to be, not provide any solid reasoning as to WHY you believe it to be so.

What the heck do you want as an "explanation"? Seriously, Berman himself said that one thing they'd do different was that it wouldn't be like they could go to a starbase or restock. Not Federation Starbase but Starbase, as in "ANY" starbase. Also the can't just restock/resupply bit.

She puts the exploring in the context of "because we're Starfleet." Ergo, exploring for the sake of exploring, since that is what Starfleet DOES.
The decision to explore for its own sake leads to the idea that they might find things along the way to help them get home quicker, not the other way around. If they were REALLY trying to get home as fast as possible "at any cost", they would just point toward home and GO, and only stop to explore something that SHOWED up front that it had the potential to help them get home faster, and only if said thing were not very far out of their way.

They aren't two separate things, but just on extension of the same objective: "Exploring because seeking out new worlds and civilizations will help us get home faster." If she really meant that they'd be exploring for the sake of exploring she wouldn't have said "set a course for home", she'd have said something more like Picard's "Let's see what's out there".

It has been completely demolished in this thread, whether you see that or not, and you have not provided a SHRED of solid reasoning to back up your belief that your version of the premise was, in fact, the premise that the writers were working with, or that it was THAT binding.

I gave you explanations, and you can just say "it's not solid reasoning". What do you want, primary sources for every last word? No Starbases and resupply = no outside aid. "Set a course for home" = getting home is the main objective.

Oh! Almost forgot: the "hatedom", as you describe it, is a figment of your imagination.

I had hoped it died off during ENT, but it's alive and well.

 

[RyuRoots]

YES, you crazy person! Because it wasn't done well! We don't have any grievances with the show's existence or what the base idea is! And don't call up your nonexistant hatedom, Anwar. Reply to the people in this thread.

No. YOU bring an interview where he says it, or I continue to call bullshit. Saito S provided one about the show, and it said no such thing. Meanwhile, you keep saying "but that's what they said, but that's what they said!" without any evidence or sane reasoning to back it up.

What is wrong with you? Of course she said "set a course for home", they ARE going to be generally traveling in that direction, even if they explore along the way. What, should she have said, "even though we're trying to get home, let's aimlessly wander in the opposite direction or something"? Would THAT have made more sense to you?

NOOOOO. You have repeated yourself like a parrot. That is not the same thing as reasoning. And actually, any evidence whatsoever of even one of your claims would help your case, which you haven't given.

No Anwar, the hatedom is still a myth. Let it go.

 

[Withers]

I'm just going to start simplifying because the line-by-line replies are just lost in this discussion.

The Premise

If it were what Anwar thinks it is (though no one I've ever heard of who has seen the show or even knows of it would describe it as such) I could agree. I'd slam the writers for having such a dumb, inherently anti-Federation plot, and then I'd slam them again for abandoning it before the end of the first episode (Kes and Neelix count as outside aid since Neelix knows the Quadrant better than anyone on Voyager possibly could during that moment in time.)

That, however, isn't what I thought the plot was. If I was supposed to interpret the premise as what Anwar did they did a piss poor job of getting the idea across. If nothing else there was entirely too much ambiguity for any reaosnable person to think "stranded far from home" meant "xenophobic and anti-help." The only way I'd have bought that would be if they had declared the Borg were the only thing in the Delta Quadrant. But I digress- I thought the premise is what everyone else thought it was.

This volley ball game from hell has centered on complaints that don't exist from people who aren't present (and might not exist either.) The criticisms that have been addressed are dismissed with the half assed excuse that, no matter what, no one would be satisfied with this show ever. The idea that, had they told better stories the show wouldn't have been any better or more satisfactory, is stupid at best. Dozens of examples have been brought up of how the show could've been stronger and that's all anyone wanted to point out in the first place- the show had a great premise and with more attention to detail, it could've stood out for a different reason than it does.

If someone wants to cuddle up with Voyager and pretend to be Anne Frank, fine, but people with criticisms aren't Nazi's and there are completely legitimate complaints to be made of it (just as there are with every Trek.) Pretending that it can all be excused by circumstance or unjustifiable negativity is an example of being oblivious to the point of seeming ridiculous and in that case one wonders exactly what the point of joining a forum might be.




-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

If it were what Anwar thinks it is (though no one I've ever heard of who has seen the show or even knows of it would describe it as such) I could agree. I'd slam the writers for having such a dumb, inherently anti-Federation plot, and then I'd slam them again for abandoning it before the end of the first episode (Kes and Neelix count as outside aid since Neelix knows the Quadrant better than anyone on Voyager possibly could during that moment in time.)​

Thus demonstrating the VOY was screwed no matter what they did, by the first episode. And Berman even agreed about the premise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9HcSB9WDTQ

"I think there may have been a problem with the whole idea of throwing the ship to the other side of the galaxy, because I think Star Trek, at its soul, is a show about heading outward into new places and discovering new things, and this was a show about heading back and trying to find our way home."