Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?

[Saito S]

Whoa whoa whoa...

number6: Just because you didn't like Babylon 5 doesn't mean the show had zero merit.

darkwing: I did like B5, myself, but you're coming off like you think it was virtually free of any flaws, which no show is, and claiming it's "objectively superior" to DS9 is ridiculous (it's a matter of preference, which show is better overall). And you don't need to smash Trek to elevate B5: "They were cold, unfeeling, overly intellectual and stiff as a board" is a pretty serious exaggeration of the TNG characters, especially in later seasons (you yourself use TNG eps to counter the idea that Trek's humans need to be "perfect").

All of that said, this thread is about VOYAGER. Now that the impossible has happened and the various "combatants" involved with the whole Voyager debate are actually all getting along and just talking about the show, let's not get this thread locked with a heated debate about Babylon 5, yeah?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

darkwing: I did like B5, myself, but you're coming off like you think it was virtually free of any flaws, which no show is

I freely admit it had occasional flaws. I'm not overly fond of S5 at all, but it's at least watchable. JMS occasionally "throws a gear" dialogue wise (like with Ivonnova's "I am death" speech), and sometimes his "subtle hints" are so damn subtle that you entirely miss them until they come back and bite you later.

But the overwhelming majority of B5 IS a superior show. It certainly helps to have ONE man's vision in charge, and virtually NO network meddling in the content to muddy it.

and claiming it's "objectively superior" to DS9 is ridiculous (it's a matter of preference, which show is better overall).

I disagree. B5's average ep quality is such that it truly stands out as a great piece of science fiction and drama. I would put S1-4 of B5 well above the equivilant seasons of DS9 (which really didn't take off until S5)

And you don't need to smash Trek to elevate B5: "They were cold, unfeeling, overly intellectual and stiff as a board" is a pretty serious exaggeration of the TNG characters,

I'm not "smashing" Trek. I like Trek. But TNG had serious structural and writing constraints that made it difficult to tell truly outstanding stories on a regular basis, nearly all of which can be traced directly back to Roddenberry's Perfect People rules. B5 let humans BE humans warts and all.

especially in later seasons (you yourself use TNG eps to counter the idea that Trek's humans need to be "perfect").

No, I bring them up as (all too) rare examples of what TNG could have been, and should have been, and what Voyager most definitely was NOT.

 

[Saquist]

I bring this up today because I just got home a little while ago from the local shopping mall. I walk into a great little store that sells basically everything science fiction. Books, DVD's, T-Shirts, memorabilia etc. So I immediately walk over to the Star Trek section and begin scouring over all the merchandise. I don't think I look like the typical Trekkie because I don't wear glasses, I'm not obese or sickly thin, but I'm muscular, with large arms and a large chest as I'm a competitive weight lifter. So anyway this guy walks up to me and asks if I'm a fan of Trek, I respond without haste, "Most definitely!". He asks if I preferred TNG or DS9. I say "Neither, Voyager is my favorite." He looks me up and down and makes a peculiar expression on his face like I just told him I believe the earth is flat. He says, "Oh, so you're obviously a fan of Jeri Ryan." Obviously he assumes I only watched the show because of her. I say "No, she did a great job with her character, but I just found Voyager the best of all the Treks." He looks at me and says "Oh." Then he just walked away.

I can't be the only one who has noticed the overtly negative perception Voyager has within the Trek community.

Oh yeah I've noticed.
It's just that Voyager under achieved big time in the later seasons and the Borg arc followed the MASSIVE tragedy of the UNFORTUNATELY successful First Contact Film which PUTTY-FIED the borg. They had no choice but to destroy the Borg by the end of Voyager.

The "Queen" crap
The "Everything on a Borg Cube is Green " crap
The "I can't know anything I haven't assimilated" crap
The "I send One ship to assimilate and entire Sovereignty Even after the first time failed"....crapppp


First Contact and Voyager did awful things to the Borg....just Awful. The Borg used to be an inevitability and a powerful Force

 

[Anwar]

I'm not "smashing" Trek. I like Trek. But TNG had serious structural and writing constraints that made it difficult to tell truly outstanding stories on a regular basis, nearly all of which can be traced directly back to Roddenberry's Perfect People rules. B5 let humans BE humans warts and all.

B5 made them 100% 20th Century humans, that's what it did. If you're going to the trouble of setting the show in the future where Humans have been in space, developing technologies that solve a lot of social problems we have now, and have them co-exist with aliens then it is really creatively bankrupt to make the humans all act 100% the way they do today. If you want them to act exactly like us, then don't set it in the future at all, like Farscape did.

No, I bring them up as (all too) rare examples of what TNG could have been, and should have been, and what Voyager most definitely was NOT.

Like I said, if you want a show where everyone acts exactly the way they do now then the show shouldn't be in the future to begin with.

 

[Anwar]

First Contact and Voyager did awful things to the Borg....just Awful. The Borg used to be an inevitability and a powerful Force

TNG made the Borg too powerful, there wasn't anywhere to go but down from where they were if they were going to keep using them. They should have either killed them all after BOBW, or had them all killed in "Scorpion" (taking the 8472 all with them, wiping both out and neatly wrapping everything up in a totally final way).

 

[darkwing_duck1]

B5 made them 100% 20th Century humans, that's what it did. If you're going to the trouble of setting the show in the future where Humans have been in space, developing technologies that solve a lot of social problems we have now, and have them co-exist with aliens then it is really creatively bankrupt to make the humans all act 100% the way they do today. If you want them to act exactly like us, then don't set it in the future at all, like Farscape did.

People are people. I don't care how much tech you give them, they will still love, hate, feel sad, feel happy, form friendships, hold grudges and do and feel all the things that people do.

Human beings are, by nature, flawed. They are not, and never will be paragons. Nor are they machines that can be "socially engineered" into "better people".

Nor are they Vulcans. And don't get me started on THEM. Hypocrites of the highest degree, looking down their over-long noses at everyone else for having emotions they have themselves.

No, I bring them up as (all too) rare examples of what TNG could have been, and should have been, and what Voyager most definitely was NOT.

Like I said, if you want a show where everyone acts exactly the way they do now then the show shouldn't be in the future to begin with.

Still wrong. Technological progress does NOT = changing fundamental human nature.

 

[Anwar]

But TNG DIDN'T fundamentally change human behavior. They just weren't so small-minded and provincial anymore. "Big Picture" and all that.

And last time I checked

they will still love, hate, feel sad, feel happy, form friendships, hold grudges and do and feel all the things that people do.

The TNG folks did love, feel sadness, happiness, form friendships, hold grudges and do all that other stuff. It wasn't as blatant as McCoy's racism, but to say they were perfect people and paragons are blatant lies.

 

[exodus]

Eek, I never thought I'd see the "only casual Trek fans like VOY" argument again until I read this thread.

I love all Star Treks. However, VOY is my favorite. The end. My husband likes VOY as much as TNG. We enjoy watching it together, and we have fun.

It didn't take enough chances at times and it had too many "what-if" stories, but I blame the network for that.

When I was younger, we enjoyed watching VOY as a family as much as we enjoyed watching TNG or DS9. Good enough for me.

I can't agree more. Frankly, it makes me wonder if these fans even get the concept of Star Trek and the philosophy behind it. It's very simple to agree to disagree but to flat out call someone a bad fan (or not a true fan) because they like a show THAT'S CANON AND PART OF THE SAME UNIVERSE is so ridiculous and juvenile. I originally got into TOS and TNG before Voyager. I love love love DS9. But my favourite show will always be Voyager. There's some awful episodes, sure. But I can name you about 20 bad episodes from each series. It's a matter of opinion, and while I'm aware of the shortcomings when it comes to Voyager (writing and inconsistencies) I am able to attribute it to a continuity error, move on and focus on what's great about it.

While I completely agree with what you're saying, IMHO such we shouldn't completely look to Trek to teach us such philosophies as acceptance and/ or tolerance of others and their opinions. Such teachings should being at home and instilled in us while we're being raised. Trek should be viewed as something that reminds of that and reinforces what I'd like to refer to as "home training".

 

[exodus]

I'm not "smashing" Trek. I like Trek. But TNG had serious structural and writing constraints that made it difficult to tell truly outstanding stories on a regular basis, nearly all of which can be traced directly back to Roddenberry's Perfect People rules. B5 let humans BE humans warts and all.

TNG doesn't have the structural or writing constraints you're claiming it has the way you describe it as, seriously. B5 isn't trying to be Trek any more than TNG was trying to be B5.

B5 is the gritty future unfortunately we maybe headed for or worse. Trek is the future (hopefully) most of society wishes for.
Trek is a future for the optimist
B5 is a future for the slightly pessimistic.
However even with that, B5 still ends on a BS happy note that you grow old, happy and watching the sunset.
If anything TNG had it more realistic, with Picard in "All Good Things..." gearing up for death as an old cranky senile man.
Besides, the crew of TNG were ambassadors for the Federation.
It's kinda bad protocol it send out douche bags to invite new societies & cultures into the Federation.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

But TNG DIDN'T fundamentally change human behavior. They just weren't so small-minded and provincial anymore. "Big Picture" and all that.

Wrong. Roddenberry laid down the rules to the writers: no intra-cast conflict, "enlightened Federation", et al. All the writers for the show have talked about it. People like Piller and Berman have defend it on the basis that it "made them write all that much better" because they were not allowed to use standard emotional and story themes common to drama because the people of the Federation had supposedly "grown beyond" that.

Which frankly is a load of crap. People are people. Technological progress does not make the supervisor on your duty shift who always seems to give you the worst tasks on the work order any less an asshole, or annoying. He's just an asshole with a PADD instead of a clipboard.

to say they were perfect people and paragons are blatant lies.

The blatant lie is to say that something all the writers have publicly acknowledged is true is a lie just to defend a show of questionable quality.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I'm not "smashing" Trek. I like Trek. But TNG had serious structural and writing constraints that made it difficult to tell truly outstanding stories on a regular basis, nearly all of which can be traced directly back to Roddenberry's Perfect People rules. B5 let humans BE humans warts and all.

TNG doesn't have the structural or writing constraints you're claiming it has the way you describe it as, seriously. B5 isn't trying to be Trek any more than TNG was trying to be B5.

Nice straw man.

B5 is the gritty future unfortunately we maybe headed for or worse. Trek is the future (hopefully) most of society wishes for.
Trek is a future for the optimist
B5 is a future for the slightly pessimistic.
However even with that, B5 still ends on a BS happy note that you grow old, happy and watching the sunset.
If anything TNG had it more realistic, with Picard in "All Good Things..." gearing up for death as an old cranky senile man.
Besides, the crew of TNG were ambassadors for the Federation.
It's kinda bad protocol it send out douche bags to invite new societies & cultures into the Federation.

More straw men and other absurdities.

All the writers acknowledged The Rules. I find it sad you cannot face the reality that The Rules put modern Trek in a creative straight jacket that it didn't need to be put in.

 

[Anwar]

Wrong. Roddenberry laid down the rules to the writers: no intra-cast conflict

Which Roddenberry himself defied when he introduced Dr Pulaski.

,

"enlightened Federation", et al. All the writers for the show have talked about it. People like Piller and Berman have defend it on the basis that it "made them write all that much better" because they were not allowed to use standard emotional and story themes common to drama because the people of the Federation had supposedly "grown beyond" that.

And they still managed to make the characters human and have conflict with one another. It didn't happen all that often but it still happened, and they still used TOS' formula of using guest characters for conflict purposes (which is how it was done most of the time on TOS anyways).

Which frankly is a load of crap. People are people. Technological progress does not make the supervisor on your duty shift who always seems to give you the worst tasks on the work order any less an asshole, or annoying. He's just an asshole with a PADD instead of a clipboard.

It DOES mean that a LOT of the stuff humans fight over today won't be much of an issue anymore in the future when we have the galaxy: National borders, starvation, resource shortages? Those won't be much of an issue except in rare cases. And if you're a professional officer you won't let one guy giving you a lousy assignment get to you all that much. It's not like you'll be stuck in that one job forever, hell I've BEEN there and I got out of it easily enough.

The blatant lie is to say that something all the writers have publicly acknowledged is true is a lie just to defend a show of questionable quality.

They acknowledged it and overcame it, STILL managing to make the characters human. Which is better than just lazily making them 100% like 20th Century people to begin with. Shows that don't even bother to consider how 200 years of living with aliens and being in space beyond the confines of Earth are much more questionable in quality.

 

[Anwar]

But anyways, this is about VOY and not B5. I think it's a shame to derail this all again after we came to an "understanding" to one another a page ago. I LIKED Babylon 5, but I don't think it was perfect (I don't think I HAVE a perfect show, anyways).

 

[exodus]

I'm not "smashing" Trek. I like Trek. But TNG had serious structural and writing constraints that made it difficult to tell truly outstanding stories on a regular basis, nearly all of which can be traced directly back to Roddenberry's Perfect People rules. B5 let humans BE humans warts and all.

TNG doesn't have the structural or writing constraints you're claiming it has the way you describe it as, seriously. B5 isn't trying to be Trek any more than TNG was trying to be B5.

Nice straw man.

B5 is the gritty future unfortunately we maybe headed for or worse. Trek is the future (hopefully) most of society wishes for.
Trek is a future for the optimist
B5 is a future for the slightly pessimistic.
However even with that, B5 still ends on a BS happy note that you grow old, happy and watching the sunset.
If anything TNG had it more realistic, with Picard in "All Good Things..." gearing up for death as an old cranky senile man.
Besides, the crew of TNG were ambassadors for the Federation.
It's kinda bad protocol it send out douche bags to invite new societies & cultures into the Federation.

More straw men and other absurdities.

All the writers acknowledged The Rules. I find it sad you cannot face the reality that The Rules put modern Trek in a creative straight jacket that it didn't need to be put in.

This is bad comedy.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Which is better than just lazily making them 100% like 20th Century people to begin with. Shows that don't even bother to consider how 200 years of living with aliens and being in space beyond the confines of Earth are much more questionable in quality.

Your hyperbole is showing again. No one ever asked for them to be "100% like 20th century people", but a lot of people found them stiff and annoyingly condescending in their so-called "enlightenment".

But anyways, this is about VOY and not B5. I think it's a shame to derail this all again after we came to an "understanding" to one another a page ago. I LIKED Babylon 5, but I don't think it was perfect (I don't think I HAVE a perfect show, anyways).

I suppose you're right. Despite my vociferous criticisms, Voyager IS Trek and I like Trek. Hell, I just bought S1 on DVD as an early birthday present to myself.

Early voyager showed amazing promise despite Berman's "we're all one Starfleet crew" edict in Caretaker. The very next ep they showed that it was NOT going to be that easy. I just wish they'd maintained that momentum, and not had to resort to Seven of (Sixty-)Nine and bollixing up the Borg.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

This is bad comedy.

No, that would be you...and why am I getting a Galvatron vibe off that post?

 

[Anwar]

Early voyager showed amazing promise despite Berman's "we're all one Starfleet crew" edict in Caretaker.

That wasn't his idea, he wasn't that creatively involved in VOY, and he agreed with Piller that it was a mistake. Jeri Taylor was the one who pushed for it the most. If Behr or Moore said otherwise, they didn't have to deal with UPN so their opinion is really inconsequential in this matter.

I just wish they'd maintained that momentum, and not had to resort to Seven of (Sixty-)Nine and bollixing up the Borg.

They would have gotten over the real crew tensions after a season or so anyways, two seasons at the MAXIMUM. It's not like the Feds and Maquis were really enemies to begin with.

The Borg, it was inevitable. They were only scary when they were the foreign foe who came from far away, and frankly they lost a lot of their power after BOBW anyways. Since VOY was in the DQ it made perfect sense there'd be more mentions of them, more sightings, and more would be learned about them.

Frankly, given how overpowered TNG made them it was a bad idea to keep using them after Best of Both Worlds. They should've killed them all right then and there. They were inevitably going to get depowered and easier to beat after that. And since VOY didn't have access to huge armadas of ships, it wasn't going to be some big space battle epic either.

Now the Cardassians and the Dominion, THAT is how you create a new enemy. For starters you DON'T make them ungodly more powerful than the good guys, just a bit more powerful is best.

And anyways, Guinan said that it was possible to co-exist with the Borg and Q said they were just ONE of many powerful forces in the Galaxy.

And Seven of Nine was no more a Mary Sue than Spock was in TOS, really. If she had been part of the show from the first episode there'd be fewer complaints.

 

[zar]

They were cold, unfeeling, overly intellectual and stiff as a board.

Technological progress does NOT = changing fundamental human nature.

Technological progress does not make the supervisor on your duty shift who always seems to give you the worst tasks on the work order any less an asshole, or annoying. He's just an asshole with a PADD instead of a clipboard.

More straw men and other absurdities.

All the writers acknowledged The Rules. I find it sad you cannot face the reality that The Rules put modern Trek in a creative straight jacket that it didn't need to be put in.

From where I'm standing, you're just as guilty of strawman and hyperbole yourself right now.

Fundamental human nature still exists in all Star Trek. Attitudes change as centuries pass, and that is not the same thing as human nature. Nobody ever argued that that necessarily has anything to do with technology, so "technological progress = changing human nature" is both exaggeration and strawman. The TNG cast was not "stiff as a board", and it wasn't in a "straight jacket".

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^The writers said it was constrained by GR's unrealistic notions of "enlightened" humanity. Piller and Berman defended those restrictions on the basis that it forced writers to be "more creative" in their story telling.

"Hero Worship", for example, had to be rewritten heavily on the basis that "24th century humans don't fear death or grieve".

Nearly all of Worf's character development came about in whole or in part because it was permissable under GR's Rules for Klingons and Federation types to disagree and be in conflict whereas the Federation types could NOT be shown in conflict with each other.

 

[stj]

Translation: "The natural human desire for blood feud to avenge insults to the clan honor has remained wholly unaffected by the progress of time. Obviously, to expect that people in the 24th century might act differently than us is completely bigoted. Just as we know slavery is an inescapable part of the human condition. Pretending otherwise is is bad writing, glibly denying the truth!"

Yeah, right.

People like Behr and Moore and Piller who rant about flawed people really come off like ignorant bigots. I don't think it's wise to take their counsel.