Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?

[PsychoPere]

Lieutenant Commander Leland Lynch ("Skin of Evil")

Lieutenant Commander Leland T. Lynch is displeased that you didn't address him by his full name.
That guy was such a douchebag.

Yeah, that was intentional. Thanks for catching it.

Since I wanted to watch Voy, the new show, I "got" to watch DS9, Trek's "grittier show.

I apologize for misreading the sentence.

Penultimate comment.... I don't need, want or plan to read 51 pages of cat fighting. My point of why trekkies FIGHT is that there is no reason to FIGHT. You like one show, I like another show... we can't all like all shows. Expecting all Trekkies to like everything is like expecting all women to hate scifi. Its a fallacy.

Last I checked, this was still a discussion board. Therefore, people are free to discuss what they don't like about a given show just as others are free to discuss what they do like about a given show. Saying that "there is no reason to fight" is even more pointless than the "cat fighting" that you claim exists. More importantly, however, you shouldn't say that you "don't know why some in the Trek community are negative about 1 show over the other..." if you are unwilling to read the reasons.

Why choke about Geordie the PILOT becoming the CHIEF ENGINEER when Enterprise already (by your count 3 being Lt Commanders) had FOUR assistant chiefs... why... I think THAT would be obvious.

First, it's Geordi, not "Geordie." Second, the only individual identified as an "assistant chief" was Jim Shimoda; all of the others were identified either as the chief engineer or as "one of our chief engineers." Third, the position of flight controller would seem to be an important training position, given the number of ensigns and lieutenants we've seen helm that position throughout all the series. Fourth, while La Forge may have been in the command division in 2364, there was no reason to presume that he didn't have extensive engineering training at Starfleet Academy; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the flight controller needed at least some engineering experience.Fifth , he proved himself a very reliable officer to Picard with his actions in "The Arsenal of Freedom." Those three items taken together, in addition to the apparent fact that the Enterprise only had one chief engineer by 2365, makes it entirely plausible to me that Picard would give La Forge a chance at proving himself as chief engineer. This was, after all, the same captain who had previously made a civilian without any formal training at all an acting ensign.

It certainly was to Lt Carey.

That was an entirely different situation. Torres was, after all, a member of the Maquis, an organization generally perceived by Starfleet officers as a terrorist group. In reviewing his Memory Alpha entry, however, it appears that Carey had dropped any arguments against Torres by episode 3 of VOY, "Parallax." That's pretty damn quick (which, in fact, is indicative of one of the problems with VOY - the fact that the Starfleet crew would so readily accept taking orders from people they viewed as terrorists).

 

[exodus]

Last I checked, this was still a discussion board. Therefore, people are free to discuss what they don't like about a given show just as others are free to discuss what they do like about a given show. Saying that "there is no reason to fight" is even more pointless than the "cat fighting" that you claim exists. More importantly, however, you shouldn't say that you "don't know why some in the Trek community are negative about 1 show over the other..." if you are unwilling to read the reasons.

Just a small off topic interjection, if you'll allow.

Shouldn't there be a distinction between "discussions" & "fighting"?
Aren't we generally more likely to listen to someone whos willing to discuss their reasons pro or con, rather than fight over them?

 

[PsychoPere]

Just a small off topic interjection, if you'll allow.
Shouldn't there be a distinction between "discussions" & "fighting"?
Aren't we generally more likely to listen to someone whos willing to discuss their reasons pro or con, rather than fight over them?

No, that's certainly a fair point to consider. However, I haven't seen anything worthy of being called "fighting" in this particular thread for quite some time. Most people in this thread (and most definitely on both sides of the debate, though I realize that, based on the approximate middle of the thread, some people might disagree with me on that) have, I feel, done the former (discuss) far more than the latter (fight). I'm also willing to admit that, in reading over my previous few posts again, I likely came off as more combative than I had intended to.

 

[Anwar]

The thing is, if the engineers and basic maintenance and work crews couldn't learn to function FAST, as in faster than the rest of the crew, they'd be screwed. This is why a "Crew who don't get along" concept starts to fail when you realize that basic maintenance is required. NuBSG glossed over the maintenance crew and engineering stuff by focusing on the refugees, food, etc. Shows like Farscape and SGU have the ships be automated so basic maintenance is never an issue.

If VOY had the engineering staff get over their differences early on, it was only because there'd likely not be a 4th episode if they didn't.

 

[PsychoPere]

^ You know, I certainly can't argue with your reasoning there. I think some grumbling (off-duty, of course) for being passed over for promotion in favor of a terrorist wouldn't have been unwarranted, but you're certainly right that, while on-duty, Carey and the other engineers needed to be consummate professionals.

 

[zar]

So, it's okay for TOS to have only 3 main characters, but not VOY?

Here is something to consider:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Main_character_non-appearances

Over 7 seasons, Torres, Tom, Tuvok, Harry, and Kes each had less than 10 non-appearances. In only 3 seasons, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu, and Uhura had many non-appearances while Kirk, Spock, and McCoy had almost none.

The problem is not the number of main characters. The problem is that Voyager essentially devoted the same amount of screen time to all its characters, yet failed to develop all but 3 of them. Harry was in more episodes than Seven or the Doctor, yet he remained the same boring guy for 7 years. If your show is going to feature 8 main characters, they should all be treated like main characters.

I'm not sure Star Trek could exist successfully in today's television landscape. The show is based upon the premise that humanity has evolved past most of their problems, and that we all live in a tranquil, Utopian, paradise free of violence, suffering, vulgarity, ect. Thats all well and good, but not many people can relate to it in the 21st century.

That premise was even harder to relate to in the 60s.

Penultimate comment.... I don't need, want or plan to read 51 pages of cat fighting. My point of why trekkies FIGHT is that there is no reason to FIGHT.

A catfight is a physical altercation between females. It usually involves pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth. This "fight" involves typing. There are reasons to "fight": Because we have different opinions, and because it's fun.

 

[Anwar]

The problem is not the number of main characters. The problem is that Voyager essentially devoted the same amount of screen time to all its characters, yet failed to develop all but 3 of them. Harry was in more episodes than Seven or the Doctor, yet he remained the same boring guy for 7 years. If your show is going to feature 8 main characters, they should all be treated like main characters.

I agree, that's why I think Kim, Neelix, Kes and Torres needed to be recurring characters and not central characters. Janeway, Chakotay (either played by a better actor or written better), Tuvok, Paris and the Doctor are fine as the core cast.

 

[exodus]

So, it's okay for TOS to have only 3 main characters, but not VOY?

Here is something to consider:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Main_character_non-appearances

Over 7 seasons, Torres, Tom, Tuvok, Harry, and Kes each had less than 10 non-appearances. In only 3 seasons, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu, and Uhura had many non-appearances while Kirk, Spock, and McCoy had almost none.

The problem is not the number of main characters. The problem is that Voyager essentially devoted the same amount of screen time to all its characters, yet failed to develop all but 3 of them. Harry was in more episodes than Seven or the Doctor, yet he remained the same boring guy for 7 years. If your show is going to feature 8 main characters, they should all be treated like main characters.

That happens on allot of shows not just Voy. though.
Mariska Hargitay & Chris Meloni's character get more development than say Ice-T or Richard Belzar characters do regardless of equal screen time on Law & Order. On LOST, Jack, Sawyer & Kate got more development than Hurley, Michael and especially Claire did. Just because cetain character weren't developed in depth doesn't mean they didn't serve a purpose. Even if Harry didn't change much, most times when he was in an ep. he still served a purpose, at least too me he did.

 

[zar]

That happens on allot of shows not just Voy. though.

It shouldn't.

 

[Saito S]

That happens on allot of shows not just Voy. though.

It shouldn't.

Exactly. "Other shows do it!" does not excuse a problem.

Mariska Hargitay & Chris Meloni's character get more development than say Ice-T or Richard Belzar characters do regardless of equal screen time on Law & Order. On LOST, Jack, Sawyer & Kate got more development than Hurley, Michael and especially Claire did.

I can't comment on Lost, but I watched Law & Order: SVU for quite a while. I stopped watching regularly during season 8, and stopped watching altogether during season 9, and the severe mistreatment of everyone except Stabler and Benson was one of the main resons why (the fact that Stabler and Benson seemed to be given nothing but high-octane EMO was another reason I stopped watching the show, but that's not relevant here). During season 8 and what I saw of 9, the other characters were not given even close to equal screen-time nor development compared to those two. It's a similar problem to what happened with Voyager, really, though zar points out that sometimes the underutilized characters had more screen-time, which is bizarre.

Just because cetain character weren't developed in depth doesn't mean they didn't serve a purpose. Even if Harry didn't change much, most times when he was in an ep. he still served a purpose, at least too me he did.

Is simply "serving a purpose" really enough for a character who appears in the theme song every week? I think not.

As for the base topic, I still don't think the Trek community really IS as negative about Voyager as it seems. People on both sides of the debate get way too defensive very often, though. Some people can't handle seeing a criticism leveled against the show without launching into an indignant "defender mode", and they end up looking like they can't fathom the idea that the show can have flaws. And on the other hand, some people can't let a Trek discussion go by without mentioning "At least it's not like how Voyager did it!", and thus end up looking like they can't let an opportunity to snipe at the show go by without taking it. I think both sides get inflated beyond what's "really" there.

That said, there may simply be a higher percentage of Trek fans for whome Voyager is their least favorite show than for the other shows (excepting Enterprise). There are five Trek shows. Some are going to be more well-liked than the others; thats' simply an unavoidable reality. But if you like a show, awesome. Don't let anyone tell you it sucks. But don't pretend it's flawless, either.

 

[exodus]

That happens on allot of shows not just Voy. though.

It shouldn't.

Exactly. "Other shows do it!" does not excuse a problem.

Mariska Hargitay & Chris Meloni's character get more development than say Ice-T or Richard Belzar characters do regardless of equal screen time on Law & Order. On LOST, Jack, Sawyer & Kate got more development than Hurley, Michael and especially Claire did.

I can't comment on Lost, but I watched Law & Order: SVU for quite a while. I stopped watching regularly during season 8, and stopped watching altogether during season 9, and the severe mistreatment of everyone except Stabler and Benson was one of the main resons why (the fact that Stabler and Benson seemed to be given nothing but high-octane EMO was another reason I stopped watching the show, but that's not relevant here). During season 8 and what I saw of 9, the other characters were not given even close to equal screen-time nor development compared to those two. It's a similar problem to what happened with Voyager, really, though zar points out that sometimes the underutilized characters had more screen-time, which is bizarre.

Just because cetain character weren't developed in depth doesn't mean they didn't serve a purpose. Even if Harry didn't change much, most times when he was in an ep. he still served a purpose, at least too me he did.

Is simply "serving a purpose" really enough for a character who appears in the theme song every week? I think not.

You mean openning credits, not theme song and this is your opinion. Which is fine but on the large audience scale, focusing on the two characters on L&O don't seem to be hurting the show at all. Seriously, do you really believe Ice-T & Belzer are better actors than Hargitay & Miloni? They get more lines because they have proven they can carry the show better over their co-stars. It's still the highest rated L&O out of all of them. I personally don't think Voy. lost much of anything not fully developing characters many in the audience didn't care about the the first place. Most don't even remember or never paid attention to the accomplishments characters like Harry or Neelix made even when they were focused on. They couldn't even tell you what purpose they did serve no matter how many times they repeated it for 7 years. People didn't care for the acting skills of Wang or Beltran, so even if they had been developed I have no doubt that folks would be complaining about why they're giving more parts to actors that can't act.(just like L&O) Is it also coincidence that the better actors on the show got the bigger parts, I don't think so. The writer/producers knew exactly what they were doing by doing this because they went by the majority of audience feedback while the show was in production. Proof of this is when many comment and say s4-5 were their favorite seasons of Voyager, the seasons where Kim, Chakotay, Neelix & Tuvok weren't heavily featured Being a producer and reading those comments says they made the right choice because it tells those in charge we didn't give a shit about those characters to begin with.

 

[PsychoPere]

^ Belzer does have acting chops, though. See Homicide: Life on the Street, where Munch actually was developed as a character, rather than the caricature he seems to be since his relocation from Baltimore to New York City.

 

[zar]

I personally don't think Voy. lost much of anything not fully developing characters many in the audience didn't care about the the first place.

That's circular reasoning. The reason we don't care about them is because they were never developed.

Most don't even remember or never paid attention to the accomplishments characters like Harry or Neelix made even when they were focused on.

So in other words, you're saying these characters were such terrible concepts from the start they couldn't be redeemed even if they tried? That's not something worthy of praise.

People didn't care for the acting skills of Wang or Beltran, so even if they had been developed I have no doubt that folks would be complaining...

People didn't care for their acting because the parts they were given were boring. I don't know about Wang, but I know Beltran can act. Chakotay defines him as much as Wesley defines Wil Wheaton.

Proof of this is when many comment and say s4-5 were their favorite seasons of Voyager, the seasons where Kim, Chakotay, Neelix & Tuvok weren't heavily featured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

 

[Saquist]

That's circular reasoning. The reason we don't care about them is because they were never developed.

No, it's not.

Proof of this is when many comment and say s4-5 were their favorite seasons of Voyager, the seasons where Kim, Chakotay, Neelix & Tuvok weren't heavily featured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

More importantly his statement is a misuse of the term "proof" meaning proven. It's at best evidence.

 

[zar]

No, it's not.

What would you call it then? The reasoning is that the audience doesn't care about the undeveloped characters, and they weren't developed because the audience doesn't care about them. If that's not circular, what is?

 

[Saquist]

It's just a statement.
A circular fallacy needs to prepositions.

It would be circular if he supported his premise with the same premise in some way.
But he's only saying we had little interest in certain characters and that there is no point in developing them. It wasn't a deduction/syllogism, just a statement.

 

[zar]

A circular fallacy needs to prepositions.

A circular argument is unique in that it doesn't have two premises, because the conclusion doubles as the second premise. Instead of "A and B therefore C", it's "A and B therefore A". The explanation in my previous post follows that pattern.

 

[Saquist]

A circular fallacy needs to prepositions.

A circular argument is unique in that it doesn't have two premises, because the conclusion doubles as the second premise. Instead of "A and B therefore C", it's "A and B therefore A". The explanation in my previous post follows that pattern.

You're talking about implicity as opposed to explicit proposition. However he doesn't ever imply the conclusion. But you added your conclusion that created the Circular Reasoning but that resulted in a necessary Fallacy because it doesn't necessarily follow that the reason we don't care about the characters is because they weren't developed.

That's a large assumption.

 

[exodus]

That's circular reasoning. The reason we don't care about them is because they were never developed.

Umm, no it's not because there is no "we" here.
I said "I personally".
That statement is only speaking for one person, me.

So in other words, you're saying these characters were such terrible concepts from the start they couldn't be redeemed even if they tried? That's not something worthy of praise.

No, you're adding your own assumptions
I'm saying I don't believe the audience took much interest in certain characters to begin with. I didn't say anything about anything being a bad concept. I'm one of the few that rarely complain about Voyager, so me saying something like that would be highly unlikely. What I am saying is; while many might have liked Chakotay, they liked the EMH more. So as a writer/producer trying to figure out a way to keep your audience, you accent the things that they have a stronger positive response to.

People didn't care for their acting because the parts they were given were boring. I don't know about Wang, but I know Beltran can act. Chakotay defines him as much as Wesley defines Wil Wheaton.

I personally believe this became the case in retrospect.
I don't honestly believe that while the show was on, proper feedback was given from the audience in time to make a difference on the show. Then considering how far in advance many eps. are filmed, by the time they got feedback half a season or more was already in the can. We complain about the mistakes on Voy. after it's over but did we do enough to get our voice heard while it was on?

As your wiki definition says, not "necessary". Which leaves it open to the possibility it could be.(I choose to be an optimist as well. It's one of the main reasons I'm a fan of Trek. )
Maybe "proof" was an incorrect term, however I think a good way to get a better idea would be to hold a poll at every Trek Con. around the country asking what folks favorite Voy. season was and tally up the votes.

However...

They knew enough during the production of s3 that they had to let either Wang or Lien go, based on feedback to try and liven it up. That tells me they watched and listened close enough to the audience to know those would be the easiest to cut & hopefully hold the audience. That also tells me they were also aware at that time where the rest of the cast of characters fell into areas of popularity as well, in order to judge who to push up and who to push back.

 

[exodus]

^ Belzer does have acting chops, though. See Homicide: Life on the Street, where Munch actually was developed as a character, rather than the caricature he seems to be since his relocation from Baltimore to New York City.

I don't disagree, however what I am saying is in comparison, is he up to par with Hargitay or Meloni?

So while YMMV, yes Belzer is a good actor...............but I think Hargitay is still better.