Braga simply did not watch the show

[Withers]

You just have an excuse for everything about Star Trek Voyager. Getting you to admit to a flaw takes about five pages of back and forth replies, after which, it will take another five pages to shoot down the ridiculous excuse for the flaw. So, let me just save us both some time:

1.) Just because you personally aren't very inventive does not mean that whatever it is you can't do cannot be done.

2.) They didn't focus on the senior crew to much avail in most cases anyway- with some supporting cast (like some of the Equinox crew or a few Marquis members who weren't mutinous) the core crew might have advanced further than they did development wise.

3.) Voyager had the Marquis crew, the Equinox Crew, Borg Children, and Neelix on board in addition to the regular Starfleet people. So, like I said, it wasn't that they weren't there it was just that they weren't used as often as they could have been (or at all in some cases.)

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

The Maquis tension was dropped because 1) It wasn't a very good idea to begin with (they should've been Romulans, those guys are REAL enemies of the Federation) and 2) A direct order from UPN (a bad one).

The Equinox survivors were a bunch of low-level nobodies would wouldn't have added anything to the crew, and were irredeemable anyways. It was dumb to keep them around and they should've all been killed along with Ransom at the end of the episode.

Neelix, he was practically part of the Fleet crew. It's not like Quark and the Fleet/Bajoran Militia members on DS9.

Borg Children. The audience hated the very concept of them so it's understandable why THEY never showed up much.

 

[Withers]

The Maquis tension was dropped because 1) It wasn't a very good idea to begin with (they should've been Romulans, those guys are REAL enemies of the Federation) and 2) A direct order from UPN (a bad one).

I agree... the Romulans would've been a better choice. That would've caused real tension. And, no, UPN so far as I have read did not order the Marquis tension dropped. I've read every interview I could find on the subject and never once was that mentioned. It's not like that's what they did anyway; they just used the tension in a selective and unrealistic fashion (meaning it would crop up if the plot of the episode required it but that was all.)

The Equinox survivors were a bunch of low-level nobodies would wouldn't have added anything to the crew, and were irredeemable anyways. It was dumb to keep them around and they should've all been killed along with Ransom at the end of the episode.

Since they never showed up ever again, yes, they probably should have all died at the end of the episode along with Ransom. The fact is they didn't. Chakotay's relationship with Marla and even Janeway's "relationship" with Noah would have provided for some interesting character driven stories... but they never explored it and like so many other things in Voyager, just watched the pitch sail on by.

Neelix didn't have to be the character he was. I don't know if they just wanted the polar opposite of Guinan and Quark (characters that work) or what... but that is another story.

The Borg Children were a stupid idea but they're an example of how the show wasn't limited by its premise in terms of introducing non-Starfleet members into the mix. If they could bring 4 Borg kids on board... why not other people? Why not people who were traveling with the crew from one point in the DQ to another in exchange for something? I'm not irritated they didn't show the Borg children more. In fact I'm glad they were used pretty sparingly but that they were able to be brought on at all is the overall point; you're so fond of saying what Voyager couldn't do. Well, they were able in this case, they just didn't do it very well.

-Withers-​

 

[Pemmer Harge]

No they didn't. Any outsider aliens encountered couldn't show up more than a few times because VOY would just leave them behind on their way home. And amongst the crew themselves, the senior crew WERE the most important characters so there was little reason to focus so much on lower-level nobodies.

Come on now. There are 150 or so people on Voyager. Those people are stuck in the Delta Quadrant just as much as the regular characters. One would assume that some of them have interesting stories to tell. There are scores of shows, sci-fi or otherwise, that make good use of recurring characters. I fail to see why it was somehow uniquely difficult to do this on Voyager.

 

[TheGodBen]

I don't see how anyone can claim that Voyager didn't have recurring characters when Ayala appeared in 120 episodes. He even spoke four times.

You guys are just haters.

 

[Anwar]

No they didn't. Any outsider aliens encountered couldn't show up more than a few times because VOY would just leave them behind on their way home. And amongst the crew themselves, the senior crew WERE the most important characters so there was little reason to focus so much on lower-level nobodies.

Come on now. There are 150 or so people on Voyager. Those people are stuck in the Delta Quadrant just as much as the regular characters. One would assume that some of them have interesting stories to tell. There are scores of shows, sci-fi or otherwise, that make good use of recurring characters. I fail to see why it was somehow uniquely difficult to do this on Voyager.

Farscape was about a group of people stuck in uncharted space and they worked fine with only 6 or so main characters despite encountering a lot more. Why is VOY subjected to this scrutiny then?

 

[Anwar]

And, no, UPN so far as I have read did not order the Marquis tension dropped. I've read every interview I could find on the subject and never once was that mentioned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/st/interviews/piller/page7.shtml

"[FONT=Verdana, ARIAL, HELVETICA]What I think everybody felt about Voyager was that it needed to be a ship show, it needed to be a lighter show, because people felt that Deep Space 9's downfall was that it was a little bit too dark. And I'm not sure I agree with that but I'm quoting, basically, my memory of the creative pressures at the time. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, ARIAL, HELVETICA]The impact on Voyager from that philosophy was that we had a natural conflict between the Maquis crew and the Star Fleet crew, but because people were worried that there was too much conflict on Deep Space 9, I think there was pressure to ease that and get this crew homogenised very quickly. I think we lost a creative opportunity by doing that"[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, ARIAL, HELVETICA]
[/FONT]

 

[Pemmer Harge]

No they didn't. Any outsider aliens encountered couldn't show up more than a few times because VOY would just leave them behind on their way home. And amongst the crew themselves, the senior crew WERE the most important characters so there was little reason to focus so much on lower-level nobodies.

Come on now. There are 150 or so people on Voyager. Those people are stuck in the Delta Quadrant just as much as the regular characters. One would assume that some of them have interesting stories to tell. There are scores of shows, sci-fi or otherwise, that make good use of recurring characters. I fail to see why it was somehow uniquely difficult to do this on Voyager.

Farscape was about a group of people stuck in uncharted space and they worked fine with only 6 or so main characters despite encountering a lot more. Why is VOY subjected to this scrutiny then?

I can't comment on Farscape, since I saw a few episodes when it started and haven't watched it since, but I'd imagine that people judge that show by the same standards by which they judge Voyager because, well, why wouldn't they?

 

[Anwar]

And in Farscape, they didn't have this massive 30+ cast people are asking for and NO ONE CARES. They're okay with the 6 or so characters they got.

So why are people so friggin obsessed with VOY showering us with dozens of characters instead of being happy with the 9 or so they got?

 

[Pemmer Harge]

And in Farscape, they didn't have this massive 30+ cast people are asking for and NO ONE CARES. They're okay with the 6 or so characters they got.

So why are people so friggin obsessed with VOY showering us with dozens of characters instead of being happy with the 9 or so they got?

I'm not obsessed, I just object to the idea that it wasn't possible to have more recurring characters. They really can work well in a show like this, as TNG showed so many times.

 

[Withers]

but because people were worried that there was too much conflict on Deep Space 9, I think there was pressure to ease that and get this crew homogenised very quickly. I think we lost a creative opportunity by doing that

There you have it. That doesn't translate, to me anyway, to a direct order from UPN saying 'eliminate the Marquis tension' but that's essentially what they did (except for when the tension between the two crews was a plot point for any given episode) and they themselves admit that doing so was a mistake.

And in Farscape, they didn't have this massive 30+ cast people are asking for and NO ONE CARES. They're okay with the 6 or so characters they got.

So why are people so friggin obsessed with VOY showering us with dozens of characters instead of being happy with the 9 or so they got?

Does Farscape even have enough fans who would care one way or the other? Regardless, you've been explained no less than three times why this sort of logic doesn't make any sense; just because two shows have similar elements does not mean that whatever works for one will ultimately work for the other.

Voyager isn't known for its character development. If DS9 proved anything it was that supporting cast can be extraordinarily helpful in terms of developing primary characters. Voyager didn't have a lot of character development and Voyager didn't have any (meaningful) supporting characters... add one to the other and what do you get?

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

There you have it. That doesn't translate, to me anyway, to a direct order from UPN saying 'eliminate the Marquis tension' but that's essentially what they did (except for when the tension between the two crews was a plot point for any given episode) and they themselves admit that doing so was a mistake.

There WAS this quote on Memory-Alpha of Piller telling us that it was a studio executive order to have the Maquis all in Starfleet uniforms before they were even done writing "Caretaker", and how he thought it was a bad idea that was against what they wanted to do. But it's gone now.

just because two shows have similar elements does not mean that whatever works for one will ultimately work for the other.

Before NuBSG was aired, Farscape was the show everyone compared VOY to unfavorably.

Voyager didn't have a lot of character development and Voyager didn't have any (meaningful) supporting characters... add one to the other and what do you get?

That if they had included the 30+ supporting characters you wanted, you'd still be here arguing that VOY didn't develop anyone to your liking including all those other characters.

 

[exodus]

I don't have an issue I took that as a serious suggestion how you would continue their storyline and commented on that. What is unclear?



VOY was certainly able to give development and screentime to all the main characters, and others. It's not like it lasted for one half-season. It lasted for 7 seasons, 170+ episodes. The reasons why some characters, like Chakotay or Kim, didn't get proper development, is not for lack of screentime - in fact, they got plenty of that - it's because the writers didn't seem to know what to do with them (and might not even have cared). Screentime doesn't equal character development, and a character can be fleshed out and get meaningful storylines in a very limited amount of screentime. Guest characters and characters in miniseries/TV films as well as feature films are a testament to that. DS9 didn't have many more episodes than VOY, but it didn't have a problem with giving every main character something meaningful to do, and fleshing out a bunch of recurring characters.

You seem to be working under the assumption that character development is something that comes in quantifiable amounts that can be distributed among characters, and if you give more to one character, you have to take away from another. Or, in other words, that characters exist in isolation, that they can't share screentime or storylines, and no character development comes from interaction with other characters. In fact, it's from interaction with the other characters that the development usually comes. The attention given to the character of Garak on DS9 didn't hurt the development of the character of Bashir; Dukat, Winn and Ziyal didn't hurt the development of Kira; Eddington wasn't detrimental to the development of Sisko, Martok didn't hurt Worf's storylines, and Female Founder didn't push Odo into the background. In fact, it was the opposite. On VOY, the best Tuvok's episode involved interaction with Lon Suder. There's no reason why the existence of a few recurring characters from Equinox would harm the development of the main characters; quite the opposite, the issues that they would have faced and brought in could have been a nice opportunity to give crewmembers such as Chakotay, Kim, Paris... something to do, other than agree with the captain and fool around on the holodeck. We could have seen them helping the new crewmembers adjust, getting into conflict with them, having moral debates with them about what they did on Equinox, exchanging experiences (for instance, Chakotay and Torres could talk to them about how the Maquis adjusted to the VOy Starfleet crew, etc.).

Ummm, sorry but yes it's very unclear because all of this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You appear to be taking what I say and adding you're own elements to it. I didn't saying anything about sceentime being equal to character development. I don't think I even mentioned the word "sceentime" in this context of the converstation at all?

My comment basically was, why give character development to a minor character if they haven't given it to the actors that are already in the starring roles? Why develope Joe Equinox No_Name when a character like Tuvok is barely getting one story a year written for him? The Equinox crew couldn't even save their own ship, what would bringing them back provide Voyager? Why aren't Niomi & Icheb enough?

I think you're missing the point that DevilEyes is making. A secondary character can enhance the role of a main character. As mentioned, one of Tuvok's best episodes was "Meld" because of his interactions with Lon Suder.

The Equinox crew should have returned in later episodes, but they became lost in the lower decks of the ship. This to me was just sloppy writing. Some of those characters already had some relationship with the Voyager crew.

For example, Marla Gilmore had several scenes with Chakotay, whereby he sympathised with her plight, but then felt betrayed by her after the revelation that she had assisted in killing the aliens. A later episode could have followed that up by having her redeem herself to Chakotay and earn his trust.

This would have given Chakotay some worthwhile material instead of his usual background role. Voyager did do his kind of thing with, as you mentioned, Naomi and Icheb, helping out with Seven of Nine's development in some way. I just don't understand why you think secondary characters are a bad thing when they worked so well in DS9...

..because if I wanted to watch I show just like DS9, I'd watch DS9 again.

What's the deal with everyone wanting each new Trek to be a cabon copy of DS9?

All ther reaccuring characters didn't help DS9 be a financial success, which is why I understand Voyager couldn't do it. I understand the business economics of TV production. I like Voyager for what it is and don't dislike it because I desire it to be different. It's enjoyable for me as it is.

What you and Devil Eyes both fail to address is that Voyager already had a secondary cast.

Voyager gave you reaccuring characters with Niomi & Sam Wildman, Vorik, the Borg kids, Barclay, Troi & Icheb, the fans didn't like ANY of them. How much more time were the writers going to waste buliding up secondary characters for fans to dismiss? They tried, they weren't going to waste more time on the Equinox crew after they already tried many times before.

I'm not missing any point of view, I'm just aware fans dismissed nearly all these ideas already while the show was on.

 

[Withers]

Voyager gave you reaccuring characters with Niomi & Sam Wildman, Vorik, the Borg kids, Barclay, Troi & Icheb, the fans didn't like ANY of them. How much more time were the writers going to waste buliding up secondary characters for fans to dismiss? They tried, they weren't going to waste more time on the Equinox crew after they already tried many times before.

I guess that's what is so baffling to me. Deep Space Nine managed to have nearly thirty supporting characters all of which I liked better than every "supporting" cast member on Voyager (even the Nagus, who I pretty much hated.) How could they get it wrong so many times and over seven years? I know I'm not alone in that thinking either; as you said fans didn't like any of the ones they introduced on Voyager.


Was that because fans were unreceptive to the idea of supplementary characters or was it because the supplementary characters introduced on Voyager sucked so hard by comparison? You can of course draw your own conclusions on that one but I know what my opinion is.


I didn't (and don't) want Voyager to be a carbon copy of DS9. Voyager had a premise that would've allowed it to stand, strong and firm, all on its own. Regardless of whether or not DS9s formula made money over Voyager's formula, it still told a better, more fleshed out, and realistic story. Voyager ignored the elements that made DS9 so much richer by comparison and I think that is what you're perceiving as peoples instance that new Trek should be just like DS9. Rather than taking note of what worked (as far as telling a good story) on DS9, Voyager seemingly flushed those things down the toilet, in favor of almost the polar opposite.

-Withers-​

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

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 I see with this argument is that I cannot see, logically, how fans can suffer "burn out" if the writing didn't suck and the show was good. People don't generally get bored, burned out, tired, or fatigued watching television shows that they like to watch. It doesn't follow. I can't imagine getting "burned out" on a television series unless it's bad, getting worse, and showing no sign of improving. I simply can't really envision someone going "man, this television series is so awesome, but I'm so tired of watching it and I'm going to stop because there are too many spinoffs." That doesn't make sense to me.

I do agree with you that they were trying to ride the coat-tails of TNG without taking into account that TNG was fresh and new. But I don't think viewer "burn out" is what caused Star Trek on TV to eventually fail. If there was any burn out, it was because they were tired of watching a *bad* show -- not because there were too many *other shows* that shared the first two words of the title.

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-​

When you take away the Star Wars novels and limit Star Wars to what is shown only on screen, as has been done here in this conversation segment with regard to Star Trek, the Star Wars Universe is smaller, encompassing 12 hours of screen time (plus 13 hours of cartoons), focusing on maybe a dozen or so characters. TOS alone blows away the entire on screen Star Wars Universe just by number of stories, and the on screen Star Trek Universe itself has focused on more characters. You can't take Star Wars Movies, Cartoons, and Novels and compare them with only Star Trek TV shows when talking about magnitude of story exploration.

They also tried to stay away from serialized programming because they were less likely to be bought by syndicated networks to show as re-runs. Syndication like shows that have mostly stand alone eps. because it appeals more to the casual viewer and can be shown out of order. It's why TNG, TOS & Voy can still be found in re-run while DS9 isn't. It's also why synidacted networks love to invest in re-run sitcoms over serierized dramas.

I can understand how syndication likes to have standalone episodes so that the casual viewer can jump in wherever and enjoy the show. I don't understand, however, what's difficult about a syndication network playing shows in the original order. I've watched TOS and TNG for years on end in syndication and the entire run of the series has been played in chronological order many times. How is the chronological rerunning of a show incompatible with syndication when they already do it all the time?

 

[Anwar]

How could they get it wrong so many times and over seven years? I know I'm not alone in that thinking either; as you said fans didn't like any of the ones they introduced on Voyager.

Partially double standard, partially because DS9 simply had intrinsic advantages over VOY when it came to the ability to tell a story.

Was that because fans were unreceptive to the idea of supplementary characters or was it because the supplementary characters introduced on Voyager sucked so hard by comparison?

They were unreceptive to the idea of recurring characters on VOY, mainly because there was no need for them. It wouldn't have made sense for characters like Garak or Martok to be on VOY.

Voyager had a premise that would've allowed it to stand, strong and firm, all on its own.

Not really, no.

Regardless of whether or not DS9s formula made money over Voyager's formula, it still told a better, more fleshed out, and realistic story.

Like I said, DS9 had inherent advantages to telling stories while VOY didn't.

 

[exodus]

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 I see with this argument is that I cannot see, logically, how fans can suffer "burn out" if the writing didn't suck and the show was good. People don't generally get bored, burned out, tired, or fatigued watching television shows that they like to watch. It doesn't follow. I can't imagine getting "burned out" on a television series unless it's bad, getting worse, and showing no sign of improving. I simply can't really envision someone going "man, this television series is so awesome, but I'm so tired of watching it and I'm going to stop because there are too many spinoffs." That doesn't make sense to me.

I do agree with you that they were trying to ride the coat-tails of TNG without taking into account that TNG was fresh and new. But I don't think viewer "burn out" is what caused Star Trek on TV to eventually fail. If there was any burn out, it was because they were tired of watching a *bad* show -- not because there were too many *other shows* that shared the first two words of the title.

Was "Maude" a bad show?
It's a spin off of "All in the Family" yet ran a shorter time than "Good Times" or "The Jeffersons".

Is "Law & Order" a bad show?
Yet every spin off expect "SVU" hasn't held as strong an audience as the original.....which resently is declining in ratings as well.

"CSI"
"NY" & "Miami" are spin off of the "Las Vegas" one but still hold weaker numbers than the original. William Peterson before leaving the show voiced his concerns about having too many spin-off's from the original because it weakens it because it's too much at once and he feared audience burn out.

It's not like all of this hasn't been in the press.
Audience burn out due to shows having too many spin off is well known by studios and those that keep in tune with the entertainment industry. Every entertainment magazine has talked all about this several times over decades. People get burnt out & bored with stuff all the time, that's what fads are. Do you think folks aren't going to evertually get tired of seeing Lady Gaga every day in the press? Just because you eat, drink & dream Trek doesn't mean everybody does. It realates to simple economic of supply and demand, Paramount gave us more Trek that the audience demanded and lost interest.

 

[exodus]

Voyager gave you reaccuring characters with Niomi & Sam Wildman, Vorik, the Borg kids, Barclay, Troi & Icheb, the fans didn't like ANY of them. How much more time were the writers going to waste buliding up secondary characters for fans to dismiss? They tried, they weren't going to waste more time on the Equinox crew after they already tried many times before.

I guess that's what is so baffling to me. Deep Space Nine managed to have nearly thirty supporting characters all of which I liked better than every "supporting" cast member on Voyager (even the Nagus, who I pretty much hated.) How could they get it wrong so many times and over seven years? I know I'm not alone in that thinking either; as you said fans didn't like any of the ones they introduced on Voyager.


Was that because fans were unreceptive to the idea of supplementary characters or was it because the supplementary characters introduced on Voyager sucked so hard by comparison? You can of course draw your own conclusions on that one but I know what my opinion is.


I didn't (and don't) want Voyager to be a carbon copy of DS9. Voyager had a premise that would've allowed it to stand, strong and firm, all on its own. Regardless of whether or not DS9s formula made money over Voyager's formula, it still told a better, more fleshed out, and realistic story. Voyager ignored the elements that made DS9 so much richer by comparison and I think that is what you're perceiving as peoples instance that new Trek should be just like DS9. Rather than taking note of what worked (as far as telling a good story) on DS9, Voyager seemingly flushed those things down the toilet, in favor of almost the polar opposite.

-Withers-​

Because while it was on, DS9 was loosing it's audience just as fast as Voy. was. Once again, why do you think they brought Worf & the Defiant on to boost ratings? Why would they copy a formula that still wasn't improving ratings? DS9 wasn't a hit show while it was on, it only became a fan favorite in hignsight. While it was on, DS9 was loosing Paramount money. You also have to consider what an audience besides what core fans want from a show. Trekker's aren't the only ones studios want to tune in, why do you think they brought Seven of Nine on to appeal to an audience outside Trek fandom?

Trek isn't about realisim. If it was, Earth still wouldn't be a planet with no poverty, no crime, no hungry and no swearing. Transporting people alive molecule by molecule wouldn't be possable nor would warp drive. DS9 is fiction too because there no such thing as being on the front lines of a war and nobody in the main cast dies due to it. Nobody even cracked a finger nail. The setting of Trek is pure fiction.

All the reasons are there on why they didn't copy DS9 are there, fans just have to stop thinking Trek is only made for them and try and learn why such choices are made during production to benefit a larger audience.

 

[Withers]

All the reasons are there on why they didn't copy DS9 are there, fans just have to stop thinking Trek is only made for them and try and learn why such choices are made during production to benefit a larger audience.

The bottom line to that line of dialouge is that Deep Space Nine is a better told story. If on one hand you have The Three Little Pigs being told by James Earl Jones and on the other hand you have Star Wars being told by Fran Drescher one is going to be more popular than the other, not because of the story, but because of how the story is told.

Since Voyager didn't make money hand over fist by any stretch of the imagination anyway why not at least tell a better story? I don't care how much money Paramount made of DS9. Ultimately nobody else does either. I understand about production values and larger audiences and all that but it isn't like Voyager accomplished any of those things while DS9 failed to do so. Again, there were elements off DS9 that told a good story. In Voyagers case they opted not to emulate any of those methods, still didn't make a lot of money, or attract larger (non-specifically Trekkie) audiences and still told a lackluster story. By the time Voyager started to turn it around they only had like 1 or 1 and 1/2 seasons left anyway. DS9 made that change at the beginning of season four (under orders to "shake the show up" otherwise the Dominion war would have happened in the stead of the Klingon War arc.)

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

And if you recall, whenever anyone on VOY attempted to "turn it around" themselves they were shut down by UPN interference (Braga's true "Year of Hell" for example).