Did Voyager's premise inherently hold it back?

[RyuRoots]

As suggested by Withers, it's probably a good idea to bring this to its own thread instead of keeping on in the "A Voyager confession" thread.

The thread is about exactly what the topic asks.

What led to this can be found in this thread:

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=113886&page=5

 

[Withers]

My short answer is no, the premise does not excuse the issues that plagued Star Trek Voyager. I have two major thoughts on the subject. The idea that a "ship alone, far from home, with limited resources and aid" limited what they could do with the villains is dispelled in other incarnations of Trek on top of the fact that it is often ignored within Voyager itself anyway.

If you look at The Original Series and The Next Generation it was usually just one ship versus whatever enemy of the episode so happened to be. Granted, both Enterprises operated in Federation space, they weren't constantly calling for backup in dealing with Klingons or Romulans. They handled it on their own a majority of the time and did it with varying degrees of success. Yes, they always won, but not in a way that was hammy or comic (at least not as often as was the case on Voyager.) Added to that Enterprise introduced its share of not-ridiculous villains and it was essentially a ship alone, without support (at most limited aid).

My second point is that, in spite of the fact that Voyager was so far from Federation space, they still used torpedoes like they were going out of style. They claimed they were running out of energy when it was necessary for the plot of the episode, but then turned around and ran the holodeck for days at a time. Not to mention the fact that after a major encounter that had the ship on the verge of destruction Voyager would appear in the next episode as if had just been launched out of Utopia Planitia. They ignored the idea of limited support and resources when it suited the plot of the episode anyway.

The problem with Voyager wasn't its premise. I don't think another show about a crew in the Alpha Quadrant would've worked. We'd seen it done before so something new was needed. Could it have been tweaked to allow a little more freedom? Possibly but that's moot since they didn't use the premise they had to its full potential anyway. Making it any bigger would've just made the sound of the series running into the ground all that much louder.

It wasn't the premise. It was the execution.

-Withers-​

 

[JanewayRulz!]

As someone who loved Voyager from "Caretaker", and continued to love it through "Endgame" (minus the C/7 parts) I have to disagree. To me, the premise was these few, these unhappy few were thrown to the other side of the universe and had to learn to work together if they wanted to get home. "Getting home" is a concept of monumental proportions, would they survive with their morals intact or would they go the way of Seska and The Equinox? Its a question who's magnitude changes with every year they are away from home. Its easier to hold onto your morals when you last saw your family 3 weeks ago, than when you last saw your family 4 YEARS ago.

In all seven seasons, but most often in the first 2 we frequently heard about shortages and the need to find resources through their own mining/gathering ("The Phage", "The Cloud", "Emanations", "State of Flux", "Tattoo", "The Haunting of Deck 12"), bartering services ("Ex post facto", "Remember", "Blood Fever", "The Disease", "Voyager Conspiracy") or through trade ("Prime Factors", "Cathexis", "Resistance", "Fair Trade", "Darking", "Random Thoughts", "Retrospect", "Hope & Fear", "Alice", "Live Fast & Prosper", "Critical Care").

We saw Voyager "take a beating" in season 2's "Manuevers", and in the very next ep we saw her hiding on a moon, waiting for needed supplies to keep her dilithium chamber working. We saw a year's worth of damage take its toll on on her in "The Year of Hell" before it magically washed away in the temporal incursion from the destruction of Annorax's timeship. We saw her take cover on a planet in "Nightingale" for needed repairs, and we saw Torres et al work like demons to refit her with the Admiral's enhancements in "Endgame".

But we saw more, much more than a rag tag ship limping her way home, and that's why I watched it so avidly week after week.

We saw that just because you are thrown into the deep end of the ocean, you don't have to eat the weakest among you, or the weakest among the alien races you run across to survive. We saw relationships form and evolve, and we saw green ensigns become seasoned officers, and uncertain Lieutenants become certain leaders.

Were there things I would have ALSO liked to have seen?

Oh yes, and the evolution of the Kes character into the shortlived being that they promised us from the start is prime among them. Alas, the writers couldn't figure out how to use her, and so they didn't. Our loss.

I would have preferred to see a strong Chakotay character in the final 3 seasons. His last best season was "4", and that was IMO because Roxanne Dawson was pregnant and he picked up extra story lines.

Believe it or not, I would have preferred to see more JANEWAY in the final season... and not quite so much of the Doctor who seemed to become more of a story stealer than even Seven.

I liked the fact that in season 4 we finally got word home that Voyager was alive. It made their absence all the more poignant, because now the crew KNEW their family was aware of their existance, so every delay, every death after that first communication was all the more tragic.

I liked the every 6 week comm messages home after "Pathfinder" in season 6 for the same reason.

For me, the premise as I see it was "just right"... test these men and women and see if they return the same as when they left.

The easy answer is "Yes"... they were "Starfleet/Maquis" Officers, and yet they were so much more. Over the years Janeway's morals did bend... going from a woman who wouldn't kill another being to retrieve Neelix's lungs, to a woman who was ready to sacrifice a "live" BORG to steal his cortical node to save Seven's life.

Torres went from a woman who would hide her mistakes from authority (Pre Delta Dreadmought) to a woman who stood in front of Janeway for the tongue lashing she knew she deserved. A woman who didn't know what it was like to have a human parent who loved her, or knew how to express her love to her own Mother... to a woman who learned both in the guise of her foster Mother. A woman who couldn't love another, to a woman who learned not only how to love Tom, but how to finally love herself.

Seven would take too long to describe... I'd just point to "Imperfection" to show how farshe's come from that disconnected drone, screaming at Janeway to leave her on a planet for the BORG to find her.

Neelix went from a jealous insecure man to the HERO he always dreamed he could be.

The EMH became, for lack of a better term", sentient... which means he could be as irritating and as arrogant as the rest of us.

Paris "grew up" in so many ways... and to point them out I'd just point to "Lineage".

As for Harry... ditto Tom, but look to ""Warhead" and and his speech to the senior crew in "Endgame"

The premise didn't hold Voyager" back... it was elevated and restrained by those very people we often rail against, its very human writers. We as consumers have a choice when it comes to the show, watch it or not. I watched it. I bought the premise, the characters, the drama, the comedy, the misses, the homeruns and in the end the DVDS.

 

[RegFan]

That premise could have made a better show, but I think it was still a bad idea. They couldn't have any of the major races very often unless one of them was on Voyager. They also decided to have an episodic show. That's the reason for some of the inconsistencies (infinite supplies). The premise also created bad science (the many technologies that brought Voyager closer to home and the technobabble that came with it, Threshold). There's also the fact that I wonder why a large part of the crew didn't just give up and try to find a nice planet to live on (like the one in Resolutions). Some of the crew would probably want to try getting home for quite a long time, but why so many of them were like that?

 

[Admiral Shran]

I'm going to have to agree with Withers on this one, the execution held the show back, not the premise. Now, while I liked Voyager, I do think it could have been much better.

The premise was a good one. Strand a bunch people who have a built-in distrust for one another on the other side of the galaxy, make them work and live on the same ship, and have them attempt to get home together. This was material for great television.

First, we should have seen much more of the "scrouging for supplies" or "limping along" storylines. If that was all the show was, it would have gotten really old, really fast. But we should have had more episodes like that. After all, how many photon torpedos did they use? How many shuttlecraft did they lose? How long did they run the holodecks, even when nobody was actively using them ("Fair Haven" and "Spirit Folk" - I looking right at you and I'm not happy)? How many Delta Fliers did they manage to construct? They shouldn't have started almost every episode like they had just launched. Look at ENT "Damage" and "The Forgotten" for well-done stories in this fashion.

Second, there should have been more tension between the Starfleet and Maquis crews. The Starfleet crew were disciplined people who were committed to regulations and the Starfleet/Federation way of life. The Maquis crew were slightly undisciplined people who liked to live life on their own terms. Most of the Maquis had either not attended the Academy, never enlisted in Starfleet, or had left the service. These two groups of people would NOT get along too easily. By the end of the series, they should all be good friends, but not fully intergrated into the Starfleet lifestyle. A good way to do this would have been to have the Maquis were civilian clothes, not Starfleet uniforms. It always struck me as odd that Neelix and Seven never had to wear uniforms when the non-Starfleet Maquis were forced to wear them.

Third, Janeway should have been looking to form alliances with several species along the way back to the Alpha Quadrant, like in the episode "The Void." Form small proto-Federations with species for the purpose of survival and self-defense as long as the ship was within a certain region of space. Once Voyager left that area, they would need to negotiate another alliance with a new set of aliens.

In short, make the show more serialized.

If the show had done all of these things, which the premise suggested, IMO, it would have been much, much better.

 

[Lynx]

With the exception of the suggestion for Kes and some minor development issues in the later seasons (I didn't really like the "development" for characters like Paris, Tuvok, Chakotay and The Doctor in the later seasons), I agree with what Janeway Rulz! wrote in her/his post.

I don't think that the original premise for the show did hold it back. On the contrary, Voyager had the best premise of all the Trek series and there could have been lot of good stories told about exploring space, meeting new interesting species and the struggle to try to reach the Alpha Quadrant.

I think that what was holding Voyager back was the writers fading inspiration which became more and more visible during the series and a tendency to "play safe" by including too many TNG references as well. Voyager had the premise to become unique but instead it was spiced with too many old tricks from the past.

Another mistake was that they had the most interesting main characters on board and they didn't use all of them the way they could have done. In the end it was all about Seven, Janeway and The Doctor why the other main characters were simply demoted to extras or moving images in the background. Great characters like Chakotay, Kes, Tuvok, Paris , Torres, Neelix and Kim deserved more screen time.

 

[Anwar]

I stated that the premise was a straitjacket, and I stand by that. The premise basically says that they aren't going to have any support, and to stick to that literally meant they wouldn't be forming alliances or easily trading with anyone they ever encountered throughout the entire show. This also means they'd likely NEVER be able to really fix up major damages incurred on the ship which is why whenever such damages occurred they saw fit to ignore the damages and have the ship be workable the next appearance.

It also meant that the villains they encountered would never be able to have the same position in the "Algorithm of villainy" that TNG and DS9's villains occupied since one ship one its own without support cannot survive entire empires attacking them. Thus all villains, including the Borg, suffered inevitable villain decay to keep the show going. Now, if they WERE allowed to have support then they could assemble big redshirt armadas to get annihilated to show off how tough their bad guys are but the premise didn't allow that.

The writers themselves realized what a straitjacket the premise was and eventually had to start finding ways of going against it, but when they did that all that happened was an endless barrage of criticisms all revolving around "You didn't rigidly stick to the premise!", which again put them in a really crappy spot.

VOY needed a different premise.

 

[Withers]

The premise basically says that they aren't going to have any support,

What? Why? It means they won't have much support from the Federation. It does not mean that every single race they encounter is going to be hostile or just unhelpful. That is your extraordinarily narrow view of the premise of the show- not what the writers were actually tasked with (thank god.)

to stick to that literally meant they wouldn't be forming alliances or easily trading with anyone they ever encountered throughout the entire show.

I'm beginning to think you didn't understand Voyager's premise somehow. It wasn't a ship of people infected with some horrible disease, lost in the Delta Quadrant. They were just lost in the Delta Quadrant. And they were Starfleet whose number one function is? That's right- forging alliances.

This also means they'd likely NEVER be able to really fix up major damages incurred on the ship which is why whenever such damages occurred they saw fit to ignore the damages and have the ship be workable the next appearance.

Your first two points are completely invalid and so is this one. Rather than just ignore what happened in the previous episode, why not explain how the ship is fixed? "Captain's Log: After two weeks at a Nehydron star base, we're finally back underway. They were kind enough to assist in repairs to Voyager though their version of coffee leaves something to be desired..." Bam. Done. You know why they didn't? (Rhetorical) I don't either but it made them seem very lazy at worst at best just inattentive.

It also meant that the villains they encountered would never be able to have the same position in the "Algorithm of villainy" that TNG and DS9's villains occupied since one ship one its own without support cannot survive entire empires attacking them. Thus all villains, including the Borg, suffered inevitable villain decay to keep the show going. Now, if they WERE allowed to have support then they could assemble big redshirt armadas to get annihilated to show off how tough their bad guys are but the premise didn't allow that.

You make it seem as though the Dominion War arc and Best of Both Worlds are the only two examples of villainy anybody is alright with. You also ignore that in Enterprise it was exactly what you described. You also ignore than in Voyager itself exactly what you described (one ship versus an armada) happened. The Xindi arc gets chastised by the same people who hated DS9 (it is pretty far removed from the original Roddenberry vision et all.) But like it or not it was the Voyager premise done better.

The writers themselves realized what a straitjacket the premise was and eventually had to start finding ways of going against it,

I don't think that's what happened. They never wrote like the idea was a straight jacket. They ignored, seemingly, whatever they wanted to ignore (like the damage from a previous episode, the number of shuttles destroyed/built, the amount of torpedoes used etc). If it was such a "straight jacket" you'd think we would have gotten a lot more consistency than we did.

when they did that all that happened was an endless barrage of criticisms all revolving around "You didn't rigidly stick to the premise!", which again put them in a really crappy spot.

I've heard a lot of Voyager criticism. A lot of it. Never once have I ever heard anyone say that the problem with Voyager was that the writers didn't stick to the premise rigidly enough. They stayed far from home until the very last episode. I think that satisfied the overwhelming majority as far as adherence to premise went. On top of that Equinox is a pretty praised episode and that broke what you're claiming is the premise.

Voy needed a different premise

No. Voyager needed a better cast, more attentive writers, and better execution.


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

The premise says "No support", not "no Federation support". The former indicates no aid coming from ANYONE, whereas the other just says they won't get help from the Federation. That IS what the writers were tasked with, and what they rightfully saw as a straitjacket and thus discarded and thus brought nothing but criticisms down on them.

Why didn't they explain how the damage was fixed between episodes? Because it wouldn't mean anything and would just make it WORSE most likely. If the audience heard those voiceovers, they'd just start complaining about how they should've seen them go to the base, negotiate repairs, seen every second of the repairs, and then get mad when they get ripped off on the bill. Best to avoid that by just having the ship fixed up by next episode.

Enterprise's Xindi arc gets criticized while the TNG Borg and the Dominion don't. And I already pointed out how with the Xindi it was one group out of many gunning for them while the other groups were actively working to keep said group from destroying the ENT. With VOY they had entire empires after them with NOBODY working to stop them, thus meaning they'd either get destroyed or the empires had to be weak for them to survive/escape.

Ignoring the straitjacket the way they did WAS their way of going against the limitations it brought on them.

VOY simply needed a less constraining premise, and probably shouldn't have been aired until a year or so after DS9 was over. At the time VOY originally aired, the Fandom had become a Hatedom that was no longer pleasable. Most of those jerks would've either been more open-minded or left the fandom entirely if VOY aired in 2001 or something.

 

[Withers]

The premise says "No support", not "no Federation support".

Where is that written? Where is it stated that the premise of Voyager was "One Federation ship versus the entire Delta Quadrant?" Where is that even implied?

Best to avoid that by just having the ship fixed up by next episode.

Well, that's what they did. In every other incarnation of Star Trek the idea of the battle damage from episode being repaired in the next had a logical reason- they'd had it repaired at a Star Base or by a rendezvous with another ship. Because of Voyager's premise an explaination was demanded but never given. The "straight jacket" premise should have meant that they gave us one. They never did meaning the premise wasn't viewed as such a 'straight jacket' after all.

Enterprise's Xindi arc gets criticized while the TNG Borg and the Dominion don't. And I already pointed out how with the Xindi it was one group out of many gunning for them while the other groups were actively working to keep said group from destroying the ENT. With VOY they had entire empires after them with NOBODY working to stop them, thus meaning they'd either get destroyed or the empires had to be weak for them to survive/escape.

I'm not going to get bogged down in an Enterprise discussion but it was two species out of five (the most militaristic ones at that) and the others didn't help out until the Arc was half over. You're exaggeration of the premise is what you're using to explain the fact that the villains were campy idiots half the time. With a more realistic view of the premise (the one that was furthered in teasers, trailers, and is generally accepted as the premise- One Federation starship, stranded in the Delta Quadrant) its pretty plain to see that the argument about having to water down the villains doesn't make much sense.

Ignoring the straitjacket the way they did WAS their way of going against the limitations it brought on them.

It wasn't the premise they ignored. It was the details of the premise. If you're going to have a ship stranded, fine, but don't have the ship use photon torpedoes like they're going out of style without some mention of how they might produce more. If in one episode you're going to have the ship nearly out of duetronium don't follow that episode with one about running the Holodeck for days at a time without explaining how its being powered. In a lot of cases one line of dialogue could've fixed the problem. They weren't ignoring the premise. They were ignoring the details and missing the opportunities to elaborate on it and make it real.

VOY simply needed a less constraining premise, and probably shouldn't have been aired until a year or so after DS9 was over. At the time VOY originally aired, the Fandom had become a Hatedom that was no longer pleasable. Most of those jerks would've either been more open-minded or left the fandom entirely if VOY aired in 2001 or something.

As I've said I just think the writers needed to pay more attention. The premise was just fine. I do agree with you, however, that they should have waited to launch it until DS9 was either closer to finished or just finished all together. Everyone was getting "Star Trek'd out" at the time and I think that included the creative team responsible for Voyager.

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

When VOY was announced, they said that the show would be about a Fed ship surviving without resources and all on its own. Now, it can't be without resources and all on its own if it finds support in the Delta Quadrant and so to stick to what the series announcement says they have to have NO aid whatsoever from ANYONE they ever encounter. Anything else is betraying the point of the show. And since they DID find allies and resources, they betrayed the show and became unforgivable by the fandom for doing so.

Like I said, they either give an explanation in one or two lines and get criticized for that, or they just gloss it over and get criticized for that. Either way, they just get nothing but criticism. Straitjacket.

Like I said, the premise forbids alliances and trading and stuff. When hostile empires who aren't less advanced than VOY go after them, how is a ship with dwindling resources supposed to survive constant attacks that show no sign of letting up? Simple, they can't be competent otherwise VOY would've been captured/destroyed in the first attack. The Xindi arc did not forbid alliances or trading, and had the more militaristic ones being somewhat restrained since they didn't control all of the Expanse on their own, nor were they advanced enough to have the entire Expanse under surveillance the way VOY's enemies would've had all their territory under surveillance. And despite this, the Xindi arc still get criticized. So even when you say it's the better-done version the writers still are assailed by the fandom, making it another no-win scenario.

Like I said, those single lines of dialog would've just made the audience angrier because them mentioning how they make more torpedoes and stuff is just further elaboration of how they aren't following the premise by having the ship possess nothing renewable. So it's either ignore the premise, or have dialog that explains exactly how they are ignoring this particular bit of the premise. Either leads to "They aren't rigidly sticking to the premise!".

So we agree, the audience wasn't accepting of any new Trek in 1995 and they should've waited until those jerks were either gone or had mellowed out.

 

[Withers]

When VOY was announced, they said that the show would be about a Fed ship surviving without resources and all on its own.

In anticipation of this argument I went to youtube to find the trailers for Star Trek Voyager. (It took longer than I expected because of all the fan made versions. Some of them are really awesome.) But I found what I was looking for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVxHeHBf6k

There's how Voyager was "announced." That doesn't even mention the idea of them being stranded in the Delta Quadrant. The point of the show, obviously, was to get the crew home. As long as that was the goal (and not... suddenly trying to leave the galaxy or something) they stayed true to it. I challenge you to find me anything that says the show was supposed to be about a ship with absolutely no support or aid at all whatsoever the entire run. You won't because no such thing exists because that was never the premise of the show.

And since they DID find allies and resources, they betrayed the show and became unforgivable by the fandom for doing so.

You think that's why fans turned on the show? Because they didn't stick to the idea of a ship lost in the Delta Quadrant? Because they didn't adhere to the shows premise the fans turned on it? It wasn't because of poor writing, bad acting, or lackluster villains? Yeah. Okay.

Like I said, the premise forbids alliances and trading and stuff.

No, it doesn't. Until you can find me any piece of source material that says Voyager was supposed to be about one ship versus an entire Quadrant, where they were never to make friends, and always encounter hostile aliens I'm not going to read any more about it.

Like I said, those single lines of dialog would've just made the audience angrier

Name one other example of fans being mad about getting an explanation for something that otherwise wouldn't have made any sense as opposed to getting no explanation at all. Take the Borg episode of Enterprise. It was terrible and they shouldn't have done it. But how much worse would it have been if they had just shown up without any exposition behind it?

I want some... backing for this argument that the premise of the show meant that a Federation ship would be barred from ever forming alliances, collecting material, or getting aid of any kind ever during its run. Without that your case is pretty flimsy.

-Withers-

Edit

Here's another one from the colonies where Janeway as good as says the premise of the show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0vphvaHtE


​

 

[Anwar]

http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/st/star_trek:_voyager.htm

"The most common plot theme is the implications of being stranded far from home. Voyager has only limited resources and no easy way to replenish them"
"Unlike the other Star Trek series, the crew of the Voyager cannot just stop at a starbase for repair or resupply"

There's one line about potentially trading with aliens, and absolutely nothing stated about forming alliances. There is stuff stated about how they are alone and cut-off and in a treacherous quadrant. Implication: Possible one-shot trading and no alliances, and a quadrant that in its entirety is dangerous to exist in.

And yes, it was because they didn't rigidly adhere to the premise that the fans hated it. The "poor writing" and "lackluster villains" were symptoms of the same premise that they tried to rigidly adhere to, meaning they were criticized for both adhering AND not adhering to it. Straitjacket.

In VOY there was an explanation given about how the Holodecks ran on an alternate power source that wasn't compatible with the rest of the ship, which was the justification given as to why they kept using it all the time. That plot point is universally reviled, meaning that it wouldn't have been any different than if they didn't explain it at all.

 

[Withers]

"The most common plot theme is the implications of being stranded far from home. Voyager has only limited resources and no easy way to replenish them"
"Unlike the other Star Trek series, the crew of the Voyager cannot just stop at a starbase for repair or resupply"

Does not Equal

what the series announcement says they have to have NO aid whatsoever from ANYONE they ever encounter. Anything else is betraying the point of the show.

allexperts.com, by the way, is hardly what I'd term "source material." For all I know you wrote that. I mean that's like quoting the Wikipedia article about it... but I'm going to let that slide I guess since it doesn't really validate what you're trying to say anyway.

The "poor writing" and "lackluster villains" were symptoms of the same premise that they tried to rigidly adhere to, meaning they were criticized for both adhering AND not adhering to it. Straitjacket.

Do you know what a straight jacket is? It isn't both tight and loose. It's tight and constricting. You can't just ignore a straight jacket when you feel like and move your arms around. And that is exactly what the writers on Voyager did. They overlooked the finer details of the situation whenever it suited them, giving themselves even so much freedom as to flout cannon. You're trying to both defend the inattention of the writers and invalidate the complaints of the fan with the argument fans of Star Trek aren't ever satisfied with anything. There's a reason so many people dislike Star Trek Voyager (by comparison with other series) and it isn't because they didn't stick to the premise and they stuck to the premise. It's because they executed so many things poorly.

In VOY there was an explanation given about how the Holodecks ran on an alternate power source that wasn't compatible with the rest of the ship, which was the justification given as to why they kept using it all the time. That plot point is universally reviled, meaning that it wouldn't have been any different than if they didn't explain it at all.

I'll give on this. That was a stupid explanation and I'd have been just fine without it. I will say, however, that's a one (or two) shot occurrence. The fact that they say they only have 30 something torpedoes and then fire them every episode is a bit more beguiling since it happens so frequently. Same for the support craft. Same for the "instant repair" factor.

-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

There's a reason so many people dislike Star Trek Voyager (by comparison with other series) and it isn't because they didn't stick to the premise and they stuck to the premise.

Yeah, it is. They ditch the straitjacket for an episode or two and get a ton of criticism for it. Then they decide "okay, we were wrong. Let's get back to the premise" and in doing so all they get is a ton of criticism for the episode's content which was due to adhering to the premise. They tried it one way, then tried it the other way. NEITHER WORKED. Not ditching the straitjacket, or being constrained by it stopped the criticism. They were just screwed no matter WHAT they did.

And if they had given a line about how they are making new torpedoes then the criticisms just would've been "it's too easy for them to make new torpedoes" so now it's just criticisms for using torpedoes and then justifying why they are using them. Same with the shuttles and talk about "Maintenance crews are working on it" to ship damage.

 

[Withers]

Yeah, it is. They ditch the straitjacket for an episode or two and get a ton of criticism for it. Then they decide "okay, we were wrong. Let's get back to the premise" and in doing so all they get is a ton of criticism for the episode's content which was due to adhering to the premise. They tried it one way, then tried it the other way. NEITHER WORKED. Not ditching the straitjacket, or being constrained by it stopped the criticism. They were just screwed no matter WHAT they did.

You're right- it's easier to tell a story that doesn't make sense. It's easier not to write than it is to write. I'm dismissing that rationalization for the status and watchability of Voyager as an excuse not to think.

Even if your hyperbolized (not entirely sure that's a word) version of the premise were correct doesn't that mean that, at the very least, the creators should be docked for lack of foresight? I mean if it was going to be so hard to tell the story consistently and in an entertaining fashion from the get-go why make a show about a ship stranded in the Delta Quadrant at all?

They've fleshed out difficult story telling before. Memory Alpha is full of articles about how hard writing a good episode of Star Trek is and yet they've pulled it off time and time again. So if the show started off by them blowing off their own feet with a loaded shot gun why did they bother doing it at all? (That's a 'for the sake of your argument' question as I don't buy what you think the premise is [something I never thought I'd ever have to debate based on how simple the premise truly is] and I don't accept that there weren't ways it could have been executed better.)


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

I agree, the premise should've been something different. As it is, it was too restricting for the Trekverse.

 

[Withers]

That's... not even kind of what I said. You agree with what you said. All I did was ask a rhetorical question (and went so far as to clarify the fact so you wouldn't do exactly what you just did. Ha!... Oh man, does anybody else just love doing this?)

I think the premise was fine. I think the execution was what sucked. But even if I went with you on it needing a different premise it would still mean the creative team of Voyager is ultimately responsible for the loud sound of the show crashing headlong into the ground- something you won't seem to budge on.

I don't think it was restrictive at all. If anything I think it was less pigeonholed than Deep Space Nine in that it was events on board a starship in a previously unexplored portion of space.


-Withers-​

 

[Anwar]

The things people complain about in the show would've happened no matter how good the execution was, what was needed was a different basic premise. DS9's were broad enough to do a variety of things, while VOY's wasn't broad enough to do much of anything other than cruise through space and meet lots of one-shot aliens because the premise says they'll always be heading home and NOT staying in one spot for anything. AND they have to survive enemy empires gunning for them while they have no federation of their own to call upon for help. As such, said empires have to be incompetent or weak otherwise it makes no sense they could've destroy VOY in one go and it wouldn't reflect well on the VOY crew to have to continually run away from every single threat like ineffectual cowards.

 

[Withers]

The things people complain about in the show would've happened no matter how good the execution was,

People don't complain that the Borg were in Star Trek Voyager at all. No one is mad they showed up in the Delta Quadrant. That's where they are from. We expected to see them at some point. People complain about how they were used (i.e. their execution.) What you're trying to say is the show would've sucked even if they had done a good job writing it and that's bunk.

DS9's were broad enough to do a variety of things, while VOY's wasn't broad enough to do much of anything

How is a Space Station versus a Starship less limiting? That was a major complaint about DS9 before it came- "It's going to be boring! How can they make a Space station interesting? It can't go anywhere!" Voyager had an entire unexplored quadrant and the ability to go anywhere they wanted. How is that more limited? The answer is it isn't.

the premise says they'll always be heading home and NOT staying in one spot for anything.

Here's a new argument from you. This is something the premise does say. They do want to go home and getting back to Earth is the ultimate goal. Now, tell me how them staying in one spot for something would've made the show better. "To boldly... Establish a colony in the Delta Quadrant and dismantle the Starship for its parts?" C'mon. Also, it isn't like space isn't vast. "Borg Space" seemed to go on forever (even after it was claimed that Kes through them beyond it.) They don't have to sit still in order for adventure to catch them.

they have to survive enemy empires gunning for them while they have no federation of their own to call upon for help.

You, again, make it seem like its Dominion War/Best of Both Worlds or nothing. Like fans only accept villains when they come in the form of massive fleets. That's just not the case. Two Romulan warbirds decloaking in front of Enterprise D was just as scary as the Dominion fleet blocking Sisko during Operation Return.

As such, said empires have to be incompetent or weak otherwise it makes no sense they could've destroy VOY in one go and it wouldn't reflect well on the VOY crew to have to continually run away from every single threat like ineffectual cowards

The writers of Voyager thought just like you do apparently. That's what we got. Idiot villains and the watering down of the Borg. If I can think of better ways to do it (as has been done time and time again across multiple threads at this point) why couldn't they? If I can take the premise of a ship stranded in the Delta Quadrant and scribble down on a cocktail napkin things that would have been more consistent and satisfying, why couldn't the people who were paid to do so do it better than they did?

You say the show needed a new premise. Fine. You can't say the show needed a new premise and not concede that it kind of sucked. You can't have it both ways.


-Withers-​