Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?

[kimc]

^ Meh, I like both shows for what they are. Sure, there were things about Voyager that disappointed me and I listened quite carefully to all of Moore's podcasts for his "Voyager fixes" but while he'll refer to Trek in general (TNG most often specifically) I don't believe he was attempting a remake or whatever it is you're alluding to. Sorry - the argument just doesn't ring for me...

 

[Harvey]

"Lack of change" means the same as "nothing was real", since he thinks ever last little thing would have to change every episode.

Of course, he didn't do that on BSG and no one cared.

Based just on the interviews I linked to, this is nothing but hyperbole. Based on the direction of the episodes Moore wrote on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine it's hyperbole. Hell, based on the direction Moore took Battlestar Galactica (as you indicate yourself) what you're saying is still hyperbole.

VOY's audience thought it was dumb how the VOY aliens kept showing up, but have no problem with the Cylons continuing to track the Galactica fleet. Double standard.

I've seen posters complain that the Hirogen re-appearing more than 35,000 light years from their position in "The Killing Game" (somehow ahead of Voyager), or Talaxians reappearing an even greater distance (also ahead of Voyager) in "Homestead" when Voyager had already traveled beyond the very fringes of their space. Yet I haven't seen posters make the same complaint that you indicate. If aliens had a reason to track Voyager (like the Kazon or the Hirogen until "The Killing Game") then it provides the perfect justification for a continuing antagonist that can be developed.

Okay, he couldn't stand that the Maquis and Fleeters could ever work together.

I've never seen him make this claim, certainly not to the extent you exaggerate it to be. But if I'm wrong, I'd be happy to see a link to an interview or something. I wasn't as active on the internet when Moore had his brief stint on Voyager as I am now, so there is undoubtedly a fair amount of behind the scenes material I've just never seen.

So Moore wanted the show to be a serialized mess wherein every single episode for 7 seasons straight led directly into the next with no break time or time jumps between episodes, and for the cast to be a bunch of weaklings who let every single last thing get to them. BSG did the reset button too, and no one cared there.

I think plenty of people complained when there was a lack of consequences for episodes like "A Measure of Salvation," actually. And, again, your exagerrating Moore's position to the extreme.

It's the same thing with the "Failed wormhole" stories. If VOY did them then the audience hates it because they knew they would fail, if they never did any of those stories then the audience just complains they should've run into a wormhole or something.

Actually, I think Voyager did a healthy number of these stories. Installments like "Ex Post Facto," are some of the better episodes of the series. I think Farscape got just about the same mileage out of these kind of episodes. Pretty quickly, of course, they get tired, but not if you introduce consequences (which Voyager did beginning in season mid-season four).

I don't know about the rest of you but working on a show in the same style of Voyager & then saying you tried to make it anti-Trek IMO is saying the same thing. If you know both shows, how could your mind not first think he was talking about Voyager?

For two reasons. First, in the interview, Moore spends time describing how even DS9 was a show that came with certain limitations due to the Star Trek banner that he was able to surpass on Galactica. He also mentions the other installments of the television wing of the franchise. It's clear he's talking about the franchise as a whole. Second, as a remake, Battlestar Galactica came with a ready-made premise. It's not as if Moore created an original property that had a basic premise similar to Star Trek: Voyager.

Moore never liked writing about aliens.

And he wanted to do Star Trek.

Boggles the mind.

Where are you getting that? Moore's well-known as "the Klingon guy." He obviously had no apprehension writing aliens. Now, an apprehension to writing endless alien-of-the-week stories where the aliens were no more than humans with funny noses? That seems perfectly understandable, in my opinion.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's probably worth noting that when you define yourself as the "anti-Star Trek" or whatever, you're not necessarily dissing the original. You're just trying to distinguish yourself from your predecessors.

STAR TREK (in all its incarnations) is an institution. Which means that if you're going to come out with a new space opera of your own, you pretty much have to define yourself by explaining how you are different from STAR TREK. Because nobody is going to get excited by a new show that's "just like STAR TREK."

Anyone who tries to invent a new spaceship-based series is going to want to be the "anti-STAR TREK." Not because Trek is a bad thing, but because we already have the real STAR TREK. Who needs a copy?

So you get all sorts of anti-TREKs like

FARSCAPE: we're wilder and more anarchic--with cooler aliens!

LEXX: we're sexier and more satiric--and European!

BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: we're grittier and more intense and 9/11-ish.

All of which worked for them, to various degrees. (I never really got into LEXX, which always seemed more appealing in theory than in execution.)

 

[Harvey]

There is a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes evidence here. You will only accept the official testimony. I weigh what is actually on screen much more heavily. The show is what is actually done and the podcasts are just talk. Always, always watch what they do, instead of just listening to what they say. This applies to more than TV reviewing.

It seems to me that not only do you favor textual evidence, but you seek to categorically disregard every public statement from Ronald D. Moore and the rest of the production staff (the "official testimony," as you describe it). This is fine if it is you want to argue that the "writers may not consciously understand the influences on them." But that claim and the claim that "[Battlestar Galactica] was deliberately modeled as an anti-Voyager" (emphasis mine) are not one in the same.

There's no doubt that all of the writers on the series were influenced by unconscious sources--Ronald D. Moore himself has often been confronted with possible antecedents that he did not consider until an interviewer or a fan suggested them. But I haven't seen any compelling evidence (your simplistic character parallels included) to suggest that Battlestar Galactica was made to particularly refute Star Trek: Voyager. Indeed, the internal memo attached the miniseries script suggests a much broader target--the entire body of televised space opera up to that point (another reference outside of the text, I know).

 

[Greg Cox]

Moore never liked writing about aliens.

And he wanted to do Star Trek.

Boggles the mind.

Not really. He did aliens for years and year on TREK. Maybe he just wanted to try something new.

I like writing vampires, but I don't put them in every book!

 

[stj]

First, Seven of Nine appearing to Baltar (or was it Six appearing to Ransom?) by itself shows the character parallels are not simplistic. Roslin was both a woman and a major character because she was (negatively) inspired by Janeway. Whenever wasn't in a storyline inspired by Janeway/Voyager, such as Chakotay actually mutinying against her arbitrary ways or Janeway submitting to his manliness, Roslin had very little dramatic function. For those who put so much stock in the official pronunciations, I've read that the producers admitted they didn't know what to do with Roslin for, what, a whole season? Or was it two? Roslin could have been a recurring character, no more nor less important than Lucy Lawless'. Her storylines were rarely essential to the show. She was there to be the anti-Janeway. This is deliberate or Moore etc. are unconscious when they write.

Second, the essay linked talks at least twice about the "pristine" ship.

 

[exodus]

It's probably worth noting that when you define yourself as the "anti-Star Trek" or whatever, you're not necessarily dissing the original. You're just trying to distinguish yourself from your predecessors.

STAR TREK (in all its incarnations) is an institution. Which means that if you're going to come out with a new space opera of your own, you pretty much have to define yourself by explaining how you are different from STAR TREK. Because nobody is going to get excited by a new show that's "just like STAR TREK."

Anyone who tries to invent a new spaceship-based series is going to want to be the "anti-STAR TREK." Not because Trek is a bad thing, but because we already have the real STAR TREK. Who needs a copy?

So you get all sorts of anti-TREKs like

FARSCAPE: we're wilder and more anarchic--with cooler aliens!

LEXX: we're sexier and more satiric--and European!

BATTLESTAR GALACTICA: we're grittier and more intense and 9/11-ish.

All of which worked for them, to various degrees. (I never really got into LEXX, which always seemed more appealing in theory than in execution.)

Well said.

 

[kimc]

First, Seven of Nine appearing to Baltar (or was it Six appearing to Ransom?) by itself shows the character parallels are not simplistic. Roslin was both a woman and a major character because she was (negatively) inspired by Janeway. Whenever wasn't in a storyline inspired by Janeway/Voyager, such as Chakotay actually mutinying against her arbitrary ways or Janeway submitting to his manliness, Roslin had very little dramatic function. For those who put so much stock in the official pronunciations, I've read that the producers admitted they didn't know what to do with Roslin for, what, a whole season? Or was it two? Roslin could have been a recurring character, no more nor less important than Lucy Lawless'. Her storylines were rarely essential to the show. She was there to be the anti-Janeway. This is deliberate or Moore etc. are unconscious when they write.

Second, the essay linked talks at least twice about the "pristine" ship.

Sorry, still not buying it...

 

[Anwar]

Based just on the interviews I linked to, this is nothing but hyperbole. Based on the direction of the episodes Moore wrote on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine it's hyperbole. Hell, based on the direction Moore took Battlestar Galactica (as you indicate yourself) what you're saying is still hyperbole.

Which is what I'm getting at. He complained about stuff in VOY but then didn't even do that same stuff in BSG. Either he just wanted to take some pot shots at VOY or he's a hypocrite.

If aliens had a reason to track Voyager (like the Kazon or the Hirogen until "The Killing Game") then it provides the perfect justification for a continuing antagonist that can be developed.

Then why were there complaints about the Kazon or Hirogen continuing to show up? And I don't mean after VOY did some big LY jump.

And, again, your exagerrating Moore's position to the extreme.

I don't think so, no. Moore wanted VOY to be the kind of show wherein all 178 episodes (7 seasons worth) would all big one big continuous story where every single episode would pick up 1 second after the last one ended, no breaks or anything between, no time for anyone to catch their breath, and if you missed 5 minutes of any of these episodes you were screwed.

And then when he did BSG he didn't do this, and no one complained. VOY really is just one big no-win scenario.

 

[exodus]

If aliens had a reason to track Voyager (like the Kazon or the Hirogen until "The Killing Game") then it provides the perfect justification for a continuing antagonist that can be developed.

Then why were there complaints about the Kazon or Hirogen continuing to show up? And I don't mean after VOY did some big LY jump.

Too add to this, they did have a continuing antagonist.
She was called the Borg Queen, yet fans complained about her showing up to much too.

So folks wanted developed re-accuring characters & villains and when they get them, they still complain.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Anwar]

Well, that's also because they thought that the Borg should've been completely invincible in all their appearances and impossible to escape from.

It's why the audience hated "Scorpion", the idea that the Borg could EVER lose in straight up combat with anyone, even if this was a new species with untold power, was beyond their comprehension. The instant they saw a Borg ship take a single bit of damage that was from a normal weapon and not a plot device, was the instant the Borg were forever ruined for them.

Of course, these same people didn't care that Starfleet could damage a Borg Cube with their own weapons in "First Contact" or that the Ent-E could destroy a Borg Sphere on its own.

Figures.

And naturally, no one had any problems with Starfleet being able to fight back against the Dominion after "The Dominion" despite the Dominion's prior show of power.

And the BSG folks didn't have a problem with how the Cylon Basestars could be destroyed in that show as well.

 

[propita]

"Unity" was on last night. Janeway et al did get intel on the Borg that the Federation never did, at least not in the same way.

They got to download some/a lot of the Borg data from the "dead" cube. That has got to be of some use, despite it (I think) NEVER being mentioned again. A single throwaway line when they meet the Borg again would've been good, something akin to "thanks to the information we got from that dead cube"?

Regardless, they had info.

 

[Anwar]

Yes, remember that whenever a Borg was killed and they weren't on a Borg vessel the body always disintegrated? It was to keep anyone from dissecting them and studying Borg tech.

Also, they had that crashed Borg ship from "I, Borg" to analyze.

 

[exodus]

"Unity" was on last night. Janeway et al did get intel on the Borg that the Federation never did, at least not in the same way.

They got to download some/a lot of the Borg data from the "dead" cube. That has got to be of some use, despite it (I think) NEVER being mentioned again. A single throwaway line when they meet the Borg again would've been good, something akin to "thanks to the information we got from that dead cube"?

Regardless, they had info.

They got more in "Dark Frontier".
Not only did Voyager have the Hansen's data in their logs, they also got data nodes for Borg assimilation info & Borg tactical info.

 

[Anwar]

Funny thing is, if those episodes were written exactly the same, only VOY had some other Starfleet ships to get blown up as cannon fodder, no one would have any problems with the story.

 

[Harvey]

Then why were there complaints about the Kazon or Hirogen continuing to show up? And I don't mean after VOY did some big LY jump.

Sounds like people complaining just to complain to me, but that's far too often the nature of the Internet. Still, I haven't seen those charges in this thread. The Hirogen appear in what is more or less a six episode arc as Voyager travels through their space, culminating in "The Killing Game." The Kazon appear in the first two seasons of the series, after the pilot in which they announce, "You have made an enemy today, Captain," until Voyager leaves their space. After that, they only appear in flashbacks and alternate realities. No problems there.

I don't think so, no. Moore wanted VOY to be the kind of show wherein all 178 episodes (7 seasons worth) would all big one big continuous story where every single episode would pick up 1 second after the last one ended, no breaks or anything between, no time for anyone to catch their breath, and if you missed 5 minutes of any of these episodes you were screwed.

And then when he did BSG he didn't do this, and no one complained. VOY really is just one big no-win scenario.

So, just to be clear, your argument is that Moore secretly wanted to do something not only did he never write or speak about wanting to do, but he never did on any television series, even when he had nearly complete creative control?

It's why the audience hated "Scorpion", the idea that the Borg could EVER lose in straight up combat with anyone, even if this was a new species with untold power, was beyond their comprehension. The instant they saw a Borg ship take a single bit of damage that was from a normal weapon and not a plot device, was the instant the Borg were forever ruined for them.

"Scorpion" (especially the first part) is one of the finest episodes of the series. It wasn't until later that the Borg stopped being effective antagonists, I don't think. People really complained because the Borg faced a superior opponent?

 

[Anwar]

They complained that a superior foe existed in the first place. And that they were in VOY and weren't created in TNG or DS9. That VOY created something tougher than the Borg was just another strike against it.

And yes, they complained that the Borg could be destroyed in a manner that didn't involve a plot device. In straight combat.

 

[Harvey]

They complained that a superior foe existed in the first place. And that they were in VOY and weren't created in TNG or DS9. That VOY created something tougher than the Borg was just another strike against it.

And yes, they complained that the Borg could be destroyed in a manner that didn't involve a plot device. In straight combat.

Well, that's just silly. But at least such complaints have receded into the background now (they aren't, for example, being made in this thread here).

 

[zar]

Well, that's also because they thought that the Borg should've been completely invincible in all their appearances and impossible to escape from.

It's why the audience hated "Scorpion", the idea that the Borg could EVER lose in straight up combat with anyone, even if this was a new species with untold power, was beyond their comprehension. The instant they saw a Borg ship take a single bit of damage that was from a normal weapon and not a plot device, was the instant the Borg were forever ruined for them.

Of course, these same people didn't care that Starfleet could damage a Borg Cube with their own weapons in "First Contact" or that the Ent-E could destroy a Borg Sphere on its own.

Figures.

And naturally, no one had any problems with Starfleet being able to fight back against the Dominion after "The Dominion" despite the Dominion's prior show of power.

And the BSG folks didn't have a problem with how the Cylon Basestars could be destroyed in that show as well.

Exaggerations underlined.

Second paragraph is a strawman. Was never mentioned anywhere in this thread.

Third paragraph onward is imaginary hypocrisy -- no proof that it was "these same people" who allegedly held those opinions. Irrelevant.

 

[Char Aznable]

["Scorpion" (especially the first part) is one of the finest episodes of the series. It wasn't until later that the Borg stopped being effective antagonists, I don't think. People really complained because the Borg faced a superior opponent?

No, Anwar is making things up. Scorpion was always one of VOY's most popular episodes (I'd argue, one of the few good ones).