Did Voyager's premise inherently hold it back?

[RyuRoots]

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."

Again, I have to remind you that almost every sane person in the world DOES believe in middle ground, Rick Berman included in all likelihood. It means that the show heads inexorably towards a conclusion of the ship getting home and that they don't get as much opportunity to purely explore as much as they might've wanted.

How does this tell us THEY CAN'T HAVE ANY SUPPORT EVER, by the way? That was your big "Berman even said!" point.

 

[Withers]

From that you can argue that Voyager's premise was inherently different from all previous incarnations of Trek. I think and may are pretty equivocal words at that. From that no reasonable person would infer the "no aid" clause or the "home at all cost" clause.

...And if you'd read what I wrote, you'll note I said If that's what the premise was... but it wasn't, so its completely invalid as an argument. I essentially said if I were blind I'd find it difficult to see too.


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

From that you can argue that Voyager's premise was inherently different from all previous incarnations of Trek
-Withers-​

And even Berman thinks the premise needed work. Hell, he even said what I have said for years: VOY shouldn't have been on while DS9 was still going. They should've either waited a 1 or 2 after DS9 ended or have it started at the end of DS9 like DS9 did with TNG (and even then it's pushing it).

 

[Guy Gardener]

Poppycock.

They should have made a fourth and a fifth show.

Maybe a 6th and seventh?

The other shows would have shouldered the suck of Voyager, just like DS9 did.

 

[RyuRoots]

From that you can argue that Voyager's premise was inherently different from all previous incarnations of Trek
-Withers-​

And even Berman thinks the premise needed work. Hell, he even said what I have said for years: VOY shouldn't have been on while DS9 was still going. They should've either waited a 1 or 2 after DS9 ended or have it started at the end of DS9 like DS9 did with TNG (and even then it's pushing it).

I hope you realize that those two things aren't even remotely related, but I do agree that it probably couldn't have hurt to have VOY air more on its own.

 

[carlmarx]

Yes, and the audience felt it was a betrayal of the premise that they found support whenever they did for anything. Meaning they'd go nuclear if they saw a damaged VOY going to an alien base and negotiating repairs done, so the writers decided to save themselves the trouble by just moving past that.

Sorry, just my two cents....

^Im just stuck on this one point and I feel it may invalidate the entire argument.
I watched Voyager from the beginning, every episode on its premiere. I can only speak from personal experience, but there is NO WAY IN HELL EVERRRR I would've, by season 4 or 5, if Voyage found a friendly alien species who offered them some repairs, freaked out and stopped watching the show because they technically violated the apparently written in stone "premise" of "Caretaker". That would have been the dumbest thing I could think of doing. And I wouldn't ascribe that behavior to anyone, even the most rabid of Trek fans.

 

[Withers]

But you're part of the "hatedom" and you were determined to be unhappy with the show even if they had made you happy with the show.

If there is anyone who saw "Caretaker" and some how inferred that the premise of the show included a.) never, ever having outside aid, and b.) that it was Voyager's goal to get home at all costs I'd invite them to speak up. Even if you can postulate a theory as to how someone might misconstrue it that way would be helpful.

The fact is the shows premise wasn't hard to grasp and the only reason anyone would so narrowly interpret it would be to justify faults with the show and invalidate legitimate criticisms. Let's not put this monkey (meaning the argument) in a Tux and call it James Bond.

The original question wasn't "What was the premise of Voyager?" I think we're all pretty clear on what it wasn't after all this but that wasn't the question. The question was whether or not the idea of a crew stranded in the Delta Quadrant (limiting their access to the known STU) was inherently a flaw and my answer to that question has been and remains an emphatic no.

-Withers-​

 

[carlmarx]

Agreed.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, I merely skimmed most of this thread, but it seems that the number one main piece of "evidence" that the "flawed" premise of Voyager was responsible for it's suck, was that the show set itself up to not be good and for less fans to like it no matter what was done with it. That there was no way for the show to be good or to silence the complaints of fans because the premise dictated that the writers could only choose the lesser of two evils for direction for the series.

I cannot think of anything that makes less sense. Again, I can only speak from personal experience, but I was not concerned with strict adherence to the premise. I wanted compelling stories, I wanted explanations for things that went unexplained, I wanted cohesion, etc. I know what would've made the show more enjoyable to me. I can also say with reasonable certainty that NOTHING would've made me happier than those things. The idea that there would be someone out there who would value adherence to some vague premise more than more QUALITY writing and compelling storylines and intelligent, new ideas, is absolutely ridiculous.

I know we've kinda moved past this, but to me, the fans' apparent reaction or would-be reaction to the series is the only somewhat-logical piece of evidence that's being used to determine the potential of Voyager. But that evidence, that fans would flip over breaking with the original premise and therefore the writers couldn't do anything to please anyone, is absurd. Almost insulting. Without that, where's the argument?