What person A defines as something being trashed, person B defines as critisim. It is possible to enjoy something yet feel that it was lacking in parts.
But that's not how it is with VOY. When anyone "criticizes" it all they do is point out the bad and never mention the good. That's not critique, it's just trashing something.
And no, "It should've been serialized" or "These characters should've been more!" are not critiques, they're just more mudslinging.
Like I said with "Living Witness" the number one thing always pointed to is "There shouldn't be a backup!" because they let that drown out anything else about the episode.
The premise itself was incomplete, had some good points, but overall needed a bit more time put into it to iron out the kinks. That was also part of the problem, they took something that wasn't totally ready and put it on the air.A fair few people don't think VOY ever really sold us it's premise hence why the show is referred to as TNG-lite.
And yet neither gets mentioned as much as VOY's "criticisms" are.And yes "Shades of Gray" and "Spock's Brain" are bad episodes and they are both definantly towards the franchises bottom end in terms of quality.
for an '80s drama episode (Prodigal son wants ailing father to respect him, says to father, "Father. Help me help you". /groan), or Barclay's navel-gazing juvenile empowerment fantasies (AKA "Hollow Pursuits Part 2") where everyone idolizes him and he can calculate Voyager's position despite *six* leaps of variable distance and means (well, two were slipstream) since "Message in a Bottle", or Barclay acting like a Ferengi with some stupid premise which means red giants across the galaxy can be used as a wormhole network all to get nanoprobes they could get from any number of dead drones from "I, Borg" or random Borg attacks or occurrences throughout Alpha/Beta Quadrant space. People loved certain episodes with gaping plot holes and ignored those plot holes. Those episodes also corresponded with TNG guest stars. At least everyone didn't fall over themselves with the Riker/Troi Enterprise 'Valentine' or the Bajoran brainwashing Tuvok to revive the Maquis (even though the Cardassians were decimated 1 year earlier and wouldn't pose a threat to the Bajorans for quite some time). These People didn't seem to mind the distance barrier falling as Starfleet Command could call collect long-distance, nor Ferengi, Klingons, et al visiting Voyager even though this undermined the premise of being isolated halfway across the galaxy and being out on their own, and given what TNG established of the speed of subspace communications, it was just the first technological leap ahead, on the same level with transphasic torpedoes and ablative hull armor. *Sigh* People complain Voyager isn't hardcore enough, feral enough. They get nuBSG, still complain. They even whine about Equinox (and ratings showed it got no bump up, meaning complainers who were sitting out by Season 5 didn't tune back in to see this episode). The show undermines its own premise and distance and is frequently visited by TNG characters or Alpha/Beta Quadrant races and people are content. One might think people wanted Voyager to jump the shark... or they just wanted more TNG but can't admit to it.That was partially because Beltran was a b*tch on set and squandered any chances he was given to do anything so they stopped caring.
Also, it was because they didn't do a good enough job making him that dissimilar from Janeway in the first place and were afraid of the underlying sexism of the premise (A weak woman captain who has to compromise with terrorists).
I think that it was the other way around. Beltran maybe did become "a b*tch on set" in the last 2-3 seasons because they didn't care about the character, shoving Chakotay more and more in the background. I can understand that he was upset about that.
Season ONE:
Chakotay confronts his lover on her betrayal and using of him. Should have been a great scene except Beltran delivers it with all the emotion of a cigar store indian. It's AWFUL. And it's season one. So this stuff about how poor poor Beltran got pissy because he was sidelined is only half the story. He was sidelined I suspect because he was terrible! Just like Picardo got more and more limelight because he was fantastic. Writers aren't going to write dramatic storylines for people who can't deliver.
Weren't the actors playing human characters under strict orders to be boring in order to make the aliens more interesting?
Considering how awful his French accent was, it's clear that the man could not act.
Considering how awful his French accent was, it's clear that the man could not act.
That wasn't a French accent, it was a British accent.
Weren't the actors playing human characters under strict orders to be boring in order to make the aliens more interesting?
Considering how awful his French accent was, it's clear that the man could not act.
That wasn't a French accent, it was a British accent.
Don't you know anything about history? World War 3 obviously has Britain conquering France.
Killing off characters like anything has pros and cons. SG:A killed off at least two of it's leads Beckett and Weir, was it a good move that's open to debate. But in the case of Beckett the fallout was so bad they had to bring the character back (via a clone).
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.