Is Voyager really Star Trek?
- Thread starter mahler5
- Start date
Voyager is Star Trek.
DS9 is Star Trek.
Enterprise is Star Trek.
Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what Star Trek really is.
DS9 is Star Trek.
Enterprise is Star Trek.
Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know what Star Trek really is.
). I don't see any reason why Star Trek can't encompass a very wide variety of concepts and story ideas. Sheesh.
I'm moving this to the Voyager forum. Its up to them what happens after that.
OK, I deserve that 
Man, you're easy!
Having the skeleton of Star Trek isn't enough. Voyager was drifting from Star Trek, sort of inbetween being faithful and "just TV". A lot of dedicated people worked very hard on it, but it was dragged down by those who were satisfied with entertaining filler, whoever they were, producers and network people I suppose.
As for DS9, I see no justification whatsoever for questioning its being Star Trek, except that it has its own unique feel, and not that of the original. I think we want a new Trek to be its own thing.
The people involved have to want to do justice to the original, and care about it more than they would an average TV show. A "Star Trek" that looks like star trek, but just fills an hour and is just sort of pretty to look at, isn't Star Trek. The guts and soul of it are the things that matter. DS9 looks a little less like Star Trek, but it matters far more, so it's the successor.
"Enterprise" had all the visual elements, all the simple, obvious ingredients that a network executive might think are enough... throw in a ship with the two cyllinders in the back, ray-guns, a Vulcan, Klingons.... fans will eat it up, I'm sure they thought.
It's not Trek at all, because it's just space adventure. It's action-adventure that just happens to be set in space, instead of ancient Greece or the old West. The content is gone. Meaning is gone. Science-fiction premises are gone. If I want to kill an hour looking at pretty effects I'll go watch a sunset or something. If I want action-adventure I'll watch Xena. It isn't even good adventure.
More and more, as the years went by, Star Trek became less about science-fiction (posing important questions about how technology might affect us in the future, etc.), and became about itself... its own internal history.
Enough to be called Star Trek?
Of course it is. That doesn't mean it has what made Star Trek successful, or that it is good entertainment. All that matters in determining whether it is Star Trek is the label and attendant details.
There's a difference between what something needs to be called a Star Trek product, and what a Star Trek should have.
Did I miss all the Chakotay and Neelix episodes to make up for the Doctor, Janeway and Seven vehicles? Voyager did the 'big three' thing in its latter half more than any show since the original.
It is, however, Star Trek - while imho a chronic, crushingly disappointing waste of excellent potential, the show was definitely Star Trek - bland, uninteresting, with almost painfully annoying characters and clunky dialogue, but Star Trek none the less. In the same way that Wesley is Star Trek, and 'Spock's Brain' is Star Trek.
I am sorry but the whole concept behind this thread just grates on my Star Trek soul.
VOY was, without a doubt, Trek, and IMHO good Trek at that.
I thought the premise was interesting, Janeway had interesting dilemmas, the cast was well constructed, and there are TONS of stand-out VOY episodes. Chakotay, Seven, the EMH, Tom and Torres-all had interesting episodes and struggled with their own issues.
People are certainly entitled to their opinions (Lord knows this bbs is full of them) but to try and discredit a 7 year Star Trek series is ridiculous.
VOY was, without a doubt, Trek, and IMHO good Trek at that.
I thought the premise was interesting, Janeway had interesting dilemmas, the cast was well constructed, and there are TONS of stand-out VOY episodes. Chakotay, Seven, the EMH, Tom and Torres-all had interesting episodes and struggled with their own issues.
People are certainly entitled to their opinions (Lord knows this bbs is full of them) but to try and discredit a 7 year Star Trek series is ridiculous.
Star Trek, in whatever form is "just tv", or in some cases, "just a movie" - Star Trek in and of itself is nothing special often being less then special - particularly when GR remade it in a new image. But in the end Trek is just television and like all shows can have highs and lows.
Sharr
Voyager is not Star Trek. Voyager is warp-propelled Melrose Place: a bunch of mentally unstable nutcases who are forced to live in the same house, and the house owner is the most crazy bitch of them all. 
Similar threads
