Discussion in 'Star Trek: Voyager' started by GlennSTL, Aug 2, 2019.
Honestly, Voyager is my favourite of all of the series and always has been.
Just like all of the series it has it's terrible episodes and it's filler episodes but it has some incredible episodes too. The characters are well fleshed out, Janeway is an excellent lead and The Doctor is comedic gold. It's got something for every kind of fan, IMO, be it casual or otherwise. So if you've not watched Voyager, give it a go. If you like it, awesome, if not, that's fine too.
Pre-Internet, a movie was about the only way to extend the life of a franchise.
The reason Voyager didn't get a movie was because Nemesis bombed (Not necessarily a bad thing; if the mighty TNG crew couldn't make waves at the box office, why take a chance on Voyager?)
NO Trek would get another movie until the Abrams/Kelvin reboot in 2009.
(To be fair to Voyager, Admiral Janeway appeared in Nemesis.)
Your judgement of Voyager hinges on an outdated business model.
TNG isn't getting one either (Picard is not S8 of TNG).
The year 2002 wasn’t “pre-Internet”, and if VGR had really made an impact with its own seven seasons, surely it would’ve made business sense to invest in their own movie instead of Nemesis, perhaps as a series finale? The actors wouldn’t have been as expensive, but even you acknowledge that ”the mighty TNG crew” as you put it held greater appeal; VGR never surpassed them.
And if a movie is part of an outdated business model, then why did TOS get three more in recent years, with a fourth up in the air? Because TOS made an impact like none of the other shows did; that’s all it takes. Downton Abbey got a successful theatrical film with another a possibility because the show was well-received worldwide.
PIC may have a different focus than TNG but it’s still about Picard, not Janeway. That’s the question here: why couldn’t VGR make a greater impact than TNG ever did or even TOS? These spinoffs were supposed to take risks and grow the franchise, not take it on a downward slope that eventually led back to TOS as something that seems to work, so let’s have more of it.
Voyager HAD a series finale: "Endgame".
Have you even SEEN the show?
TMP up to the mid-90's WAS pre-Internet.
The fact remains that Nemesis bombed at the box office.
Their appeal extends only so far.
They rebooted the series (to the dismay of a great many OS fans).
It was not without controversy.
It DID grow the franchise. (It expanded upon and embellished the Borg. It gave the franchise its first female starship captain.)
Without Voyager, we wouldn't be talking about Picard and the impact Voyager's actions had on ITS universe.
I don't see the franchise as going down a "downward" slope.
I’m asking why that couldn’t have been the VGR movie.
We’re talking about the post-VGR, Nemesis era, which means 2002.
My point was that you yourself still put it above that of VGR.
It was still a movie based on a TV show with essentially the same characters in a different timeline. That model isn’t outdated, merely difficult to implement if a TV show is forgettable.
I meant in terms of becoming even more competitive television than TNG ever managed to, rather than an installment that has largely been forgotten next to TNG, which why we’re getting a Picard show with one supporting character from VGR that we know of.
For now it seems to be trying different things and seeing what sticks, with showrunners coming and going all the time, but without any kind of impact on the television landscape.
You're demonstrating a real lack of understanding at the current business model for Trek. They're not just "trying different things and seeing what sticks," they're crafting individually very different shows so to target different audiences for each one, whilst also ensuring that the Trek fans who watch all the new shows get variety rather than more and more of the same. It's perfect, and the ONLY way that CBS will be able to successfully flood the market with a number of Trek projects at the same time.
It’s hardly perfect since when have you seen genre-defining, award-winning television made that way, recently or in the past? The way it works is that those in charge take a risk on an experienced writer who then becomes a showrunner motivated to stay with a project for a number of years, developing it with a unique vision until the show makes a name for itself. That’s how we got The Twilight Zone, The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, as opposed to something like the Star Wars strategy which is what CBS seems to be going for.
Yes, they’ll maintain hype and interest and people will be excited there is Trek in the air and I’ll watch everything for the canon at least but how much of it will matter in the long run? In the case of Star Wars, Rogue One is great. The Last Jedi is solid. Solo is quite rewatchable. Rebels has its moments. The Mandalorian sounds good (Disney+ won’t be here until next year or so). DSC keeps changing showrunners and Chabon couldn’t stick with PIC for more than one season, so I’m not holding out hope for anything more than a tonally inconsistent streaming show for the ‘20s.
The fans would've rioted, that's why.
You're asking people who committed to a show for seven years to pay extra to see their own show's ending.
CBS is now having to compete with Star Wars (and the MCU) in the streaming arena (Mandalorian, anyone?)
Your strategy works when the network allows it ***cough*** Firefly ***cough*** Birds of Prey ***cough***.
You want to know why the Birds are now getting a movie? You're talking to one of the reasons why (I led the campaign to bring the show to DVD).
Ashley Scott's appearance in Crisis On Infinite Earths? That was us too (an acknowledgement, if nothing else).
VGR wasn’t a show which needed that kind of commitment. Yes, in Season 7 the setting was far closer to home than in Season 1, with a main character who wasn’t there at the beginning and Barclay showing up from time to time, but still the producers chose the traditional route of the ship coming home at the very end, and it was easy to guess that the ending would work out that way. Something happens, the crew is back safe and sound.
Therefore, since nobody was at the edge of their seats for the ending anyway, why not make them care a bit more by making a theatrical event out of it? I’m not saying it was the only way to make a VGR movie, just that it would’ve fit the show better than getting the band back together so they could somehow travel back to the Delta Quadrant and solve a problem after the fact.
Sure, fan campaigns or crowdfunding can lead to low-budget movies (Serenity, Veronica Mars), but a wider impact is needed to generate something on the scale of Star Trek: First Contact, let alone the Abramsverse films. I’m not too interested in Star Trek as a way of competing with Star Wars, but more in Star Trek as prestige television which can lead to movies and other TV as a side effect, not as part of a pre-programmed strategy.
As it should have been. The Emmy that GOT won was more of a reward for their series as a whole than it was for the last season, which was horribly rushed and it showed with the final product.
Kirsten Beyer's Voyager novels take Voyager back to the DQ as explorers.
You're terribly naive about corporate strategy.
Synergy is where it's at nowadays (look at Star Wars and the MCU). Everything is interlocking. Everything is interconnected.
I read about what VGR novels did, which is one reason I wouldn’t want to see that artificial “let’s reset some elements so we can have something that makes sense as VGR” approach if the series had a movie.
And how about you don’t call people “terribly naive” if they just explained how “corporate strategy” can lead to hype and revenues but not necessarily impact? No one disputes that SW let alone MCU are based on successful business models making billions of dollars, but they’re not likely to generate something that completely surpasses their origins. Which Star Wars films will be forever lauded more than the original trilogy? I want to see them.
Disney doesn't care so long as it rakes in the cash.
I'm not sure I understand your argument, but I guess we've come a long way if the new way to criticize Voyager is "It never surpassed TNG in broad appeal and made movies."
There are lines of thought here that just don't follow.
"Take risks and grow the franchise."
This is very vague, but it seems to imply that taking risks will grow the franchise, or that mass appeal is achieved by taking (artistic?)risks, or that the result of a show that took "risks" is mass appeal.
I would propose we throw out the word "risks" here, as it usually has no meaning in these arguments.
Voyager could have been everything you ever hoped for and still not have surpassed TNG in "mass appeal," and also still not gotten a movie. Enterprise took a bold, new direction, including many "risks"(things the studio worries about. That's what a risk is, right?) and it didn't achieve the success of Voyager, DS9, TNG, or TOS. Eventually, it couldn't even sustain itself.
I'm not sure Voyager was supposed to be "lightning in a bottle," but the show did quite well. I'd be curious to see what ad rates were in the late 90's, as Voyager had a much larger budget(which kept increasing) than TNG, despite being much less widely available. And when it was in it's sixth season, and the producers were adamant that it end on seven, the network demanded another show like Voyager, set on a ship, set in the 24th century.
It seems like what you're really arguing is that Voyager doesn't have the brand recognition that TNG or TOS does, thus it didn't do what it was supposed to(take risks and achieve mass appeal), therefore it's not a worthy Star Trek show, and since this thread is about "Is Voyager worth watching," you are saying that it is not. Would Voyager have had wider appeal if it had a movie? Do TNG and TOS have the brand recognition they do today because they had movies?
...yes, and it's irrelevant to the quality of any of these shows.
I disagree. Discovery has revamped itself 3 or 4 times now. They are continuing to try very different things each season, and have had a lot of turnover, including of executive producers.
Voyager was hit or miss. When it worked, it was really marvelous. When it was bad, oh it was bad... the stuff in between is give or take.
By and large, I liked how Tuvok allowed the writers to explore Vulcan lore.
The Seven/Janeway relationship and how the latter guides Seven to rediscovering her robbed humanity is fantastic.
Janeway has the amalgamated traits of Kirk and PIcard yet comes across as her own character.
The incidental music too tries to recapture the TOS feel at times, while remaining modern.
Unlike most shows, for Voyager I would recommend to look up specific episodes long before that season 1 premiere, which from personal experience has turned off a lot of people I tried showing it to - despite protests of "Come see this one first, they refined the format and it's much better!!" Just know that the crew was chasing down some rebels and got transported to the Delta Quadrant at the far end of the galaxy and they all have to get along.
Then again, I do know one or two people who loved it from the get-go. If you're put off by early season 1, fast forward a bit then return to the earlier episodes if you're piqued. But there's some great stuff in terms of character development and sci-fi exploration.
IMHO, Seasons 4-6 are deemed the best, or at least the most consistent in story quality. 3 is decent. 1 and 2 are varied. 7 was running on fumes for the most part.
Watch the boldfaced ones first as they're more or less the best, but all of these are usually perceived as being above average or better:
Year of Hell
Message in a Bottle (maybe a 50% boldface? )
The Killing Game
Hope and Fear (a lot of season 4 could easily be put in this list)
Dark Frontier (maybe a 50% boldface?)
Blink of an Eye
Live Fast and Prosper
Note that all of those are season 3's finale or later. Seasons 1 and 2 I never warmed up to, but did rather like:
Worst Case Scenario
Lastly, please avoid "Threshold" for as long as humanly possible, as long as inhumanly possible... just don't see it. (IMHO it starts out decently but does quite the impressive tail-dive into something so embarrassingly bad...)
Living Witness is the finale.
Voyager is a show that asks very little of it's audience and doesn't require you to think to much. I loved it when i was a kid but i struggle to watch it as an adult. Whereas DS9 took risks and shook up the trek formula, Voyager was the polar opposite and it's really evident by the end the mid point of season 1 when a TNG plot gets recycled that Voyager is just a cog to keep the trek cash machine spinning.
I say watch it and make up your own mind.
There was a REASON it was staring down cancellation by S3.
I'd say Voyager is worth watching, once. I went through the entire series a few years ago and while I enjoyed it I have no desire to watch it again.
Separate names with a comma.