I've heard it was the network: the execs wanted a show that got ratings like TNG and thought they knew how to get it: They overruled any conflict between the Starfleet and Maquis crews, said no to any multi-episode story arcs, and otherwise meddled the show to death.It became obvious to expect less from Voyager, but there's never been a convincing reason supplied to me why they had to try less than other shows to create their own mythos?
I get this all like seventh-hand, like from some website where some guy said he's heard someone say that the producers had hinted at it, but it makes more sense to me than the previous working theory I'd had: Berman & Braga were actively trying to alienate all the established fans, possibly in an effort to kill the franchise. That had replaced my working theory before it, which was that Berman & Braga were complete idiots who wouldn't know a good idea if it hit them in the face.
I encountered a comment in a blog by a former TV writer about a conversation he'd had with a friend who was a producer. He gave the friend the standard writer's complaint: that the producer kept making changes that were killing the show (in this case a sitcom), robbing it of what made it unique or good and making it like everything else; more to the point, making it a poor imitation of what had been popular a few years ago. He was quite surprised when his friend the producer agreed that most of the shows he had produced would have been better if he had done nothing, made no changes, and let the writers make the show they had pitched.
When he asked his friend why, knowing that, he continued to make changes to shows; why he meddled when he knew his meddling actually reduced the product's chance of success, the producer replied, "I'm getting paid here. I can't just do nothing."
Hollywood is a very weird place, and apparently a lot of the people in charge really are idiots.

Last edited: