Is Voyager Heavily Underrated?

[HugeLobes]

You mean problems with fans who disagree?.

Kinda. I don't see people disagreeing like this about other captains, at least not nearly to the same degree. One person can argue that Janeway did well, another can argue that she performed poorly (or tyranically etc), and both can bring in points to support their arguments.

So, maybe that's the fault of the writing? I've always sort of liked Janeway, but I also think her character wasn't as consistent or interesting as a whole when compared against Kirk, Picard, and Sisko. I feel about Janeway as I feel about Voyager. Lots of good ideas, but I bit muddled and unfocused in reality.

Ultimately, I think issues in Janeway's writing account for many of these arguments, so it's interesting and telling when they turn up when people are discussing how fairly or unfairly rated Voyager is.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I think there were three turning points for Janeway - when Seska and the Kazons took control of the ship; the Borg alliance; and Voyager's encounter with the Equinox.

Are you sure that these are really turning points? To me, it seems like these were overly dramatic moments that focused on Janeway making a decision in order to move the plot. For most of the series, Janeway's approach is largely one of building a sense of unity and common purpose through a base of share values. They were one crew that followed Starfleet protocols. It would have been more obvious if the series had a more Upstairs/Downstairs approach, but I can think of a number of late episodes in which Janeway shows concern for, fosters or makes use of a common identity: Omega Directive, Extreme Risk, One Small Step, Good Shepherd, Drive, and Author, Author.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Ultimately, I think issues in Janeway's writing account for many of these arguments, so it's interesting and telling when they turn up when people are discussing how fairly or unfairly rated Voyager is.

I think the problem should be brought up more. They developed premises that were almost irrelevant by the end of the first season. They characterized Janeway in a way that made her seem more heavy handed than she was. Perhaps most importantly, the show changed in tone radically from the Taylor era to the Braga era to the Biller era.

 

[Farscape One]

Having that many head writer changeovers hurt VOYAGER, I think.

DS9 really had only one changeover, from Piller to Behr. It was different, but it didn't feel like a major change... at least, it felt like a direction that was being built toward already. It was pretty consistent, for the most part. Same with ENTERPRISE, when Braga/Berman left the reins to Coto. That was a big change, but it was heading a bit toward that direction already. TNG had its share of changeovers, about the same amount as VOYAGER. I think we tend to be more forgiving of TNG's shifts because the series itself was never really geared to have serialization. VOYAGER's premise basically made it so it SHOULD have been much more serialized, but could still be episodic. I think that is the heart of the issue.

If I were to put a single reason why this series gets the hate more than the others is because of all the STAR TREK shows, it didn't live up to its premise as much as their siblings.

STAR TREK set the standard and the mission. TNG did by doibg exactly what their says... THE NEXT GENERATION. DS9, I feel, actually surpassed their premise. ENTERPRISE, for the most part, stayed true to their premise, as well... humans basically getting their space legs, and seeing how everything started. I think it would have fulfilled it completely had we gotten 3 more seasons... it certainly was going exactly in that direction.

VOYAGER had great ideas, but didn't really follow through with a lot of them. Not saying it deserves the hate so many give it, but I can see why this is always used against them. I truly enjoy VOYAGER, just like all the rest... but frustration is a constant companion regarding the potential.

 

[HugeLobes]

I think we tend to be more forgiving of TNG's shifts because the series itself was never really geared to have serialization. VOYAGER's premise basically made it so it SHOULD have been much more serialized, but could still be episodic. I think that is the heart of the issue.

TNG is also way better after season two. I can't think of another show that experienced such a jump in quality, Trek or not. VOY changed, but it didn't improve anywhere close to the degree TNG did. Wouldn't consider it 'fixed' like TNG was.

 

[Farscape One]

TNG is also way better after season two. I can't think of another show that experienced such a jump in quality, Trek or not. VOY changed, but it didn't improve anywhere close to the degree TNG did. Wouldn't consider it 'fixed' like TNG was.

I would agree with that. But the thing VOYAGER had that TNG didn't was the benefit of a LOT of hindsight, going from a season 1 to season 2. VOYAGER had a room full of writers that saw a lot of changes over the years, so in theory it should have already been polished or 'fixed', so major changes between season 1 and 2 shouldn't have really been needed.

Maybe that is the source of what I have heard people call 'franchise fatigue' in the writers room, because I have heard that VOYAGER was the start of this.

(Not sure I agree with that statement, but at least in later seasons I can't really disagree completely, either.)

 

[HugeLobes]

Maybe that is the source of what I have heard people call 'franchise fatigue' in the writers room, because I have heard that VOYAGER was the start of this.

The whole 'franchise fatigue' thing annoys the hell out of me. People don't get tired of concepts - they get tired of bad writing.

Honestly, Voyager had kind of a lazy feeling about it for me. I think at this point they just assumed another Trek would be a hit and didn't put much effort into thinking how things would pan out. Just get a bunch of different characters on a ship, put them in a weird situation, and let things play out. Even when ratings were dropping, they went with the most shameless way to bring in more:

For the most part, even Voyager fans seem to agree that things like the Maquis and being trapped away from the Federation weren't fully exploited. If the writers took advantage of those USPs, we'd have an entirely different show and nobody would be sitting around talking about 'franchise fatigue'.

 

[Farscape One]

I agree that bringing in Jeri Ryan was a play for eye candy, but it turned out she was an excellent actress and the caracter brought a lot to the table. It was a great move, regardless of the reason behind it.

 

[HugeLobes]

I agree that bringing in Jeri Ryan was a play for eye candy, but it turned out she was an excellent actress and the caracter brought a lot to the table. It was a great move, regardless of the reason behind it.

Eh, I don't know. I'm only half talking about the eye candy thing. Honestly, it's mostly the Borg aspect.

They were such a unique concept in TNG. They were used sparingly, and they were made as a perfect adversary for Picard. I didn't like them in FC, but at least that was just one movie. Voyager took that concept and wrung it dry. Wouldn't have been so bad if they were at least a VOY concept, but they weren't. Again, don't complain about 'franchise fatigue' if your idea to boost ratings is simply overusing something from TNG.

 

[Refuge]

You mean problems with fans who disagree? If anything it has pointed out issues with the Federation as everything she did they would have approved and any other captain would have done the same. It is such a shame that her command style has to be seen as a negative.

Lol, yes welcome to the forum Still the answer remains in the success that Voyager has displayed both by her popularity and the interest that remains. These discussions validate that.

 

[Tracy Trek]

Also given your statement about what makes a dictatorship, then how is Picard and Kirk any different?

While she did negate some of those laws, so did Picard and so did Kirk and Sisko.

If you're looking for a true dictator, that would be Micheal Burnham who was not even a captain but constantly tried to take full control. I like her, but if you're going to rag on Voyager and claim it is a military dictatorship, lets really look at the facts here. Janeway's one goal was to protect her crew, Burnham was motivated by that goal, but she was out more for revenge for a great deal of the first season, her choices were made more based on hate than love. Can the same really be said for Janeway?

Another case of Voyager gets bashed for things the other shows get away with, perhaps?

Everyone stayed (including the Maquis), knowing that they were staying on a ship with a captain in charge, not a city (which, really, didn't Voyager have like 400 people?

Voyager didn't have more than 150.

 

[Refuge]

I agree that bringing in Jeri Ryan was a play for eye candy, but it turned out she was an excellent actress and the caracter brought a lot to the table. It was a great move, regardless of the reason behind it.

Agreed and as a woman and a Voyager fan I hate it when people dismiss Jerri as just being eye candy. It's really rather insulting.

(Thought I should edit that to make it extra clear I didn't think you were dismissing her contribution )

 

[HugeLobes]

As a woman and as a Voyager fan I hate it when people dismiss Jerri as just being eye candy. It's really rather insulting.

He didn't dismiss her. He said she was an excellent actress. Even Jeri herself totally got why she was cast:

"I knew exactly what I was in for when I had my first costume fitting. Clearly my character was added to the show for sex appeal, which remains the one way to get attention very quickly. I don't think it's the only way to get viewers to watch strong women, but it worked. "."

Here's Kate Mulgrew's take:

"I had thought 'damn, we were going to forgo all of this with a female captain.' But the demographics proved the audience wanted more sex." However, she reflected that Ryan "did a marvelous job in a very difficult role. It was very clear to anyone with eyes in their head that Jeri Ryan’s beauty and sexual appeal were an important part of the numbers.

If you can look at Seven of Nine's original costume (which was retired because Jeri could barely move) and don't think she was cast as eye candy, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Refuge]

Janeway is a woman and the show's leading character. I'm not that surprised.

Is "Voyager" heavily underrated? Yes. Definitely. I'm not claiming that it's the best Trek show. I don't think there is a "best" Treks show. I had ignored this show for four seasons until my sister had convinced me to watch it. And I truly regret that I never watched it from the beginning, because regardless of flaws or virtues, it became a big favorite with me.

I don't think Ben Sisko was ever dumped on like Kathryn Janeway. I think he was simply ignored by fans, in compare to DS9's other characters.

I think Sisko had a wonderful voice and physical presence. Kind of boring in my opinion but the reality was he was suited for his role. Stationed.

Maybe it was difficult for some viewers to see Janeway as a Captain that could be as 'Academy' as any man was. She was cool and a scientist who could also be strategic, self-sacrificing and compassionate. I recall thinking when the Kazon dumped the crew on that planet, for all they knew that was going to be their forever home. Rank would mean nothing and yet they still followed her. That is leadership.

 

[Refuge]

He didn't dismiss her. He said she was an excellent actress. Even Jeri herself totally got why she was cast:

I didn't say he did I was just commenting.

 

[HugeLobes]

She was cool and a scientist who could also be strategic, self-sacrificing and compassionate.

You're kinda explaining exactly why I dislike Janeway...

I didn't he did I was just commenting.

Even so, I don't get why you'd find it insulting when she was very obviously hired as eye candy.

 

[Refuge]

You're kinda explaining exactly why I dislike Janeway...

You are allowed to But I can only write from my point of view.

 

[HugeLobes]

You are allowed to But I can only write from my point of view.

Thing is, I kinda really like Janeway, mostly because Mulgrew portrayed her so fantastically. I just think she wasn't a very well-rounded character.

 

[Refuge]

Thing is, I kinda really like Janeway, mostly because Mulgrew portrayed her so fantastically. I just think she wasn't a very well-rounded character.

I think I may have mentioned it somewhere but I wonder if the personalities of each Captain actually were suited for the purpose of their show. Obviously some viewers strongly disagree, but I think of Kirk being a young Captain with idealism and a cockiness that was perfect for an exploratory mission. Sisko has family, he was grounded. He was spiritual he fitted DS9. Janeway is a flawed human being but in her successes and by her failings she got the job done. Archer I am just learning about. He has a dog that makes him good in by book. Oh and Picard! Nearly forgot about him - grumpy old fart

 

[HugeLobes]

Janeway is a flawed human being

How do you see her as flawed? This is my main issue with Janeway. Seems a little too perfect.

I've definitely said this before, but I really wish they'd played up Janeway's sciencey background and had her less able when it comes to fighting and combat situations. Not much of a people person, more like Picard in that regard, so prone to isolation and not great at keeping up morale.