Braga simply did not watch the show

[Withers]

you're not posting to actually start or participate in a good discussion

I've made fewer off topic posts in this very forum than you have. If I added nothing to general discussion of any given thread you might have a point. I have made it a goal to avoid doing just that. Centering my posts doesn't negate what is written... it simply annoys certain posters (no doubt the way refusing to use punctuation/grammar and people who routinely post off topic to point out asinine, trivial minutiae frustrates other people).

But, if you' think its trolling, warn me over centering my posts and I can take it up with someone... you know, else. I'd also like to point out that this is no less than the fourth time I've had to reply to this specific thread after a post that makes absolutely no contribution to the matter being discussed. If anything I'd think that qualifies as trolling.

i feel VOY's storylines and production had a major horse collar around its neck called UPN. i have read in plenty of instances where storylines and ideas were nixed by TPTB at UPN (a TNG-style episodic series with little to no story arcs, maintain an upbeat and optimistic feeling overall, etc.). i think if VOY had been a syndicated series like TNG and DS9, the VOY production crew artistic license might have had less restrictions. so while, VOY is still my favorite series i recognize some of the things it lacked. but, then, none of the trek series is perfect.

Do you have any examples of where that happened? It'd go along way in a different thread about the premise of Voyager and how it could have been executed better. If it was UPN all along, and not just the writers being lazy, I think that's worthy of being brought up.



-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

Michael Piller himself said in an interview they were explicitly ordered by UPN to ax the Maquis tensions on the ship (hence why they all wore Starfleet Uniforms) and to NOT do arced storytelling. He didn't like it, but it was a direct order. It was why he was eventually asked to leave the show.

 

[Withers]

Michael Piller himself said in an interview they were explicitly ordered by UPN to ax the Maquis tensions on the ship (hence why they all wore Starfleet Uniforms) and to NOT do arced storytelling. He didn't like it, but it was a direct order. It was why he was eventually asked to leave the show.

He was ordered to abandon it within the first episode? If that's the case (which it may well be) one wonders what the point of even having part of the senior staff be Marquis in the first place was? If they were ordered to have less dramatic conflict its no wonder the show plays out like Star Trek: Dora the Explorer when it comes to character development.

Where did he say he was told they couldn't do arc story telling though?


-Withers-​

 

[CoveTom]

^ Voyager suffered a great deal by being the first Star Trek show since the original to be on a network. Where Paramount had offered the producers of TNG and DS9 relatively free reign -- and Berman, despite his vilification on these boards, actually stood up for the DS9 team and helped them get away with many things they couldn't have otherwise -- such was not the case with Voyager and UPN.

Multiple people, including Berman and Piller, have spoken of the intense interference that UPN provided, particularly in the early days. This was in the days when networks were still averse to arcs that ran beyond an occasional two-part episode and didn't want much being carried over from one episode to the next. They wanted completely stand-alone episodes that could be watched casually by any viewer in any order without having to know any of the history.

The approach actually worked well for TOS and TNG, because they were starships on their "home turf" whose specific mission was to go from place to place exploring and/or dealing with the latest crisis. But it hamstrung Voyager, because the show was, by design, a continuing saga of the crew having to pull together as a family and work to find their way home. To tell that kind of story and not be able to have significant arcs that play out over time is to defeat the very purpose of the concept.

 

[Withers]

The approach actually worked well for TOS and TNG, because they were starships on their "home turf" whose specific mission was to go from place to place exploring and/or dealing with the latest crisis. But it hamstrung Voyager, because the show was, by design, a continuing saga of the crew having to pull together as a family and work to find their way home. To tell that kind of story and not be able to have significant arcs that play out over time is to defeat the very purpose of the concept.

I think that's the most succinct explanation I've ever had for why Voyager is what it is- and I can accept that. Memory Alpha (which is basically the only thing I've ever read that relates to the production of any Trek) has almost no information about Voyager's production when you compare its pages to those of DS9's (which I've always been kind of curious about). I think, as a writer, I'd have thrown my hands in the air at the thought that this would be the most serialized premise ever proposed for a Trek series and yet would be granted the least freedom to tie one show to the next.

It, indeed, goes along way to explaining why it seemed to suck so badly in some areas that they had previously been strong with (like character development) but... it doesn't excuse everything. There's still no reason for outright failure to explain certain plot points. There's still no reason their villains had to be comic relief at the same time. And it goes on. Still, I didn't know that about Berman and Piller or that UPN basically said "Make this show suck and have it carry our Network!" It explains a lot.


-Withers-​

 

[brcarthey]

Do you have any examples of where that happened? It'd go along way in a different thread about the premise of Voyager and how it could have been executed better. If it was UPN all along, and not just the writers being lazy, I think that's worthy of being brought up.

​

-Withers-​

Braga stated in an old interview (i believe in a star trek magazine) that season four was supposed to be the "year of hell." he was emphatically told, "NO!" by TPTB at UPN. therefore, he settled for a two-episode storyline. then he went on to explain that UPN had some kind of final call (this is part is a little more hazy) on the overall storyline direction--mind you, not necessarily the caring about the route a story would take but how it ended up from point A to point B.

 

[seigezunt]

If he didn't...could ya blame him?

 

[gianderosa1990]

That would have been a really good season, can't believe that idea was rejected.

 

[Anwar]

UPN and Paramount HATE serialized storytelling. They would never have allowed a flagship show to attempt it in an era when it wasn't already commonplace.

Now, if the show had been made after DS9 then MAYBE things would've been different.

 

[CoveTom]

^ Not just UPN and Paramount. The fight against serialized programming was common amongst all the networks. Only in recent years has it become more accepted. It's a shame too, and I'm thankful that Behr -- and, yes, with the help of Berman -- was able to gradually nudge DS9 in that direction.

 

[Withers]

From what I've read UPN wanted TNG ratings and they assumed the best way to do that was to create TNG-lite in spite of the fact that the over all premise of Voyager would be in direct contradiction to the idea that one day would have nothing to do with the next. So, rather than BSG (which had head and shoulders better ratings than TNG ever had) we got Star Trek: Voyager. Somewhere in between those two extremes (with BSG representing, potentially, the most serialized space drama ever and Voyager representing unrealistic disregard) is the Trek that should have been.


Even given the heavy handed meddling of UPN in the early years (and the apparent direct blocking of making YoH into a full year arc- which... that doesn't sound like a very good idea. How depressing would that be? And then what a waste- after a full season of beating the crap out of Voyager The HMS Reset sails again!) I still think there were ways the show could've been better... though I do question how wise it was to go with the premise they did if they had no initial intention of ever really linking one show to the next.

-Withers-​

 

[exodus]

From what I've read UPN wanted TNG ratings and they assumed the best way to do that was to create TNG-lite in spite of the fact that the over all premise of Voyager would be in direct contradiction to the idea that one day would have nothing to do with the next. So, rather than BSG (which had head and shoulders better ratings than TNG ever had) we got Star Trek: Voyager. Somewhere in between those two extremes (with BSG representing, potentially, the most serialized space drama ever and Voyager representing unrealistic disregard) is the Trek that should have been.

-Withers-​

..but BSG was on cable and doesn't rely on Neilson ratings.
Voyager on network TV does.
Trek's die hard core fans base wasn;t big enough to support a ratings based show, which is why it did better on a synicated station. Voyager should have been a cable show.

Paramount didn't take into account that TNG came about after a nearly 15 to 20 year absence of Trek on TV. So folks who had only grown up watching reruns of TOS, TNG was like Christmas morning. By the time Voy. aired, the novelity of Treks re-birth had long faded causing TNG, DS9 & Voy being back to back was too much Trek too soon. By ENT. nearly everyone was burnt out on Trek.

The problem is, unlike the Star Wars universe. The Trek one is too limited. Which is also why the fanbase is smaller.

 

[Anwar]

BSG isn't as serialized as Babylon 5 was. And Babylon 5 at least had the entire series plot planned out BEFORE the show started while NuBSG made up their stuff as it went on and it REALLY showed when the show hit Season 3.

 

[TheGodBen]

So, rather than BSG (which had head and shoulders better ratings than TNG ever had)

Hmm, oldBSG or newBSG?

NewBSG never had great ratings, at some points it would dip below 2 million viewers compared to TNG's consistent 9-11 million viewers, SciFi just pushed it because of its critical success. OldBSG possibly had better ratings than TNG because that show had huge ratings back in the 70s, but the ratings slid week after week and ABC had to go for the nuclear option: Galactica 1980. When choosing between a bit hit that dies fast or a moderate hit that has very consistent ratings for 7 years then studios would be best served by going for the later.

 

[Withers]

..but BSG was on cable and doesn't rely on Neilson ratings.
Voyager on network TV does.

That's not the point though. The point is that BSG was wildly popular. I mean it actually spawned its own original spin-off. Through the approach that Moore went with under essentially the same plot (a ship, lost in spacial wilderness, headed for Earth) BSG succeeded commercially where as Voyager did not. We have an example of the approach working and we have an example of the approach producing something that leaves a lot to be desired and that was the point.

Edit

When choosing between a bit hit that dies fast or a moderate hit that has very consistent ratings for 7 years then studios would be best served by going for the later.

I actually don't know. All I've read was that nuBSG did better than any space drama has in the last like 12 years or something? I don't know where I read that but either way- Voyager would not get moderate ratings if it were aired today. I mean... c'mon, nobody would swallow that sort of story telling now. And I'm not sure I agree; I'd take Lost or Desperate Housewives or House at their prime (for the money) before I'd take... I dunno, seven years of Cougar Town.

The problem is, unlike the Star Wars universe. The Trek one is too limited. Which is also why the fanbase is smaller.

This I couldn't agree with more. Every story in the Star Trek Universe that is shown on screen is about the Federation. It's about one of five Captains. If its a movie we're talking about the scope gets even smaller. They won't make a movie that isn't about the Enterprise if the Star Trek title is involved. I think that's why its so stagnant. Only the novels really explore what the galaxy is actually like and I think that keeps the STU very small by comparison.

-Withers-​

 

[exodus]

..but BSG was on cable and doesn't rely on Neilson ratings.
Voyager on network TV does.

That's not the point though. The point is that BSG was wildly popular. I mean it actually spawned its own original spin-off. Through the approach that Moore went with under essentially the same plot (a ship, lost in spacial wilderness, headed for Earth) BSG succeeded commercially where as Voyager did not. We have an example of the approach working and we have an example of the approach producing something that leaves a lot to be desired and that was the point.

I disagree.

TNG success spawned 2 successful spin-offs, 4 movies and tons of successful merchendise such as the books, T-shirts, Video games and lets not forget the highly popular Playmates action figures. Voyager retained just enough popularity for Paramount to open "Trek; The Experance" in Las Vegas. nuBSG while good, doesn't hold a candle to the money making juggernaut that is Trek.

 

[CoveTom]

Paramount didn't take into account that TNG came about after a nearly 15 to 20 year absence of Trek on TV. So folks who had only grown up watching reruns of TOS, TNG was like Christmas morning. By the time Voy. aired, the novelity of Treks re-birth had long faded causing TNG, DS9 & Voy being back to back was too much Trek too soon. By ENT. nearly everyone was burnt out on Trek.

Nonsense. I hear this argument over and over again, and I still don't buy it. Later seasons of Voyager tanked because they were crap. Enterprise tanked because it was crap. TNG succeeded because it was not crap. Audience burnout had nothing to do with either.

 

[Withers]

TNG success spawned 2 successful spin-offs, 4 movies and tons of successful merchendise such as the books, T-shirts, Video games and lets not forget the highly popular Playmates action figures. Voyager retained just enough popularity for Paramount to open "Trek; The Experance" in Las Vegas. nuBSG while good, doesn't hold a candle to the money making juggernaut that is Trek.

I'm not comparing nuBSG to TNG or to all of Trek. I only made that reference because UPN wanted TNG ratings for Voyager and decided they could accomplish that by making TNG-lite (i.e. little to nothing connecting one episode to the next, little serialization, and dampened conflict between the crew etc.) I was comparing nuBSG to Voyager itself. From a writing stand point it's the same basic principle; a group of humans sailing through uncharted space towards Earth. nuBSG was a critical success and Star Trek Voyager was not. (For the record- I don't think Voyager's popularity, one way or the other, had anything to do with the Trek Experience opening in Las Vegas.)

-Withers-​

 

[TheGodBen]

I actually don't know. All I've read was that nuBSG did better than any space drama has in the last like 12 years or something? I don't know where I read that but either way- Voyager would not get moderate ratings if it were aired today. I mean... c'mon, nobody would swallow that sort of story telling now. And I'm not sure I agree; I'd take Lost or Desperate Housewives or House at their prime (for the money) before I'd take... I dunno, seven years of Cougar Town.

I don't know where you heard it but it is certainly not the case, BSG was never a huge ratings success, it was a moderate success for the SciFi channel for its first two years or so, earning around 2.5-2 million viewers, which was respectable for a cable station. They tried re-airing the miniseries on NBC to see if it would work on a broadcast network and it flopped miserably, it supposedly had the worst ratings ever for that timeslot. By the end of season 3 the viewing figures were getting into dangerous territory and Ron Moore wanted assurances from SciFi that the show would run for another two seasons so he could arc them out, but they refused and only offered him one, suggesting that there could be a season 5 if season 4's ratings didn't dip too low. Ron Moore didn't take the risk and decided to tie up the show in only 1 more season, but strangely enough the writers strike caused season 4 to be split in two and they were aired almost a year apart, so it was almost like getting two short seasons.

TNG on the other hand was the highest rated syndicated show on television, it was hugely successful and earned ratings in the 10 million region. Crucially, the ratings never significantly declined, if you look at the ratings graphs for TNG it always fluctuated around that 10 million mark for 7 years. TNG could have gone on for another seven years, but Rick Berman had a dream of turning TNG into a film franchise so they wrapped it up and created Voyager. I consider to to have been a mistake on two fronts.

 

[I am not Spock]

The problem is, unlike the Star Wars universe. The Trek one is too limited. Which is also why the fanbase is smaller.

This I couldn't agree with more. Every story in the Star Trek Universe that is shown on screen is about the Federation. It's about one of five Captains. If its a movie we're talking about the scope gets even smaller. They won't make a movie that isn't about the Enterprise if the Star Trek title is involved. I think that's why its so stagnant. Only the novels really explore what the galaxy is actually like and I think that keeps the STU very small by comparison.

-Withers-​

Sorry, but I disagree. The Wars universe (onscreen canon, anyway) is all about the Skywalkers and the Clone Wars/Galactic Civil War. Trek, I think, is a more open playing field, with DS9, Voyager, as well as all the Enterprises.