The trouble with Star Trek: Voyager is that, occasional episodes of diamond in the rough aside, it took what should have been Star Trek's boldest premise, and by playing safe, utterly nullifyed any chance it had before it had even gone before the cameras. The series bible sets us up for a show we never got. It talks about the Maquis being an opportunity for conflict between the characters, but then does exactly nothing with it, absorbing them into the crew fully by midway through season 1. Yes, episodes like Prime Factors show what could have been, but they stand in isolation so much as it almost be the antithesis of the show's business as usual. It's doubly galling to consider the Maquis were specifically concieved for Voyager for this purpose, but they introduced them over on Deep Space Nine, and it's *that* show, through the character of Eddington, that ultimately made use of them, while the likes of Commander Chuckles and Lt Torres essentially just morph into generic little Starfleet crew for the most part. They took the boldest risk of any Star Trek show -- removing anything remotely familiar, throwing the crew into an unsafe corner of the galaxy without backup or resources, and 'clearing the decks' of familiar elements from TNG and DS9 -- but by the third or fourth episode they've already encountered Romulans, and of course, they'd later fall back on the Borg as antagonists after the Kazon proved to be an even more embarrassing potential new menace than the Ferengi on TNG had. And, speaking of the Ferengi, like Enterprise later, the writers fell back on them too and figured out a way to do a Hilarious Ferengi Episode(tm), despite the ship being stuck in the Delta Quadrant a long way aways from Ferenginar. And then *Klingons* show up in Season 6 or 7. Yeah. Even the very idea of the show seems to fly in the face of it's potential. If you're a Starfleet ship in unfriendly territory, but the whole idea is to "set a course.... for home", then every episode will inevitably become self contained, as rather than having to adapt to the Delta Quadrant and may be, I don't know, start to set down roots as the enormity of making it back alive with no resources to help keep things ship-shape and in Bristol fashion, hits the crew. Maybe somewhere in the second or third season Janeway has to bite the bullet and admit that getting home is a pipe dream. Instead, the reset button gets hit at the end of every episode, because they fundamentally always have to be leaving orbit and returning to their goal of heading home, leaving any civilizations we encounter to ultimately be Alien-Of-The-Week, never to be developed and never to be seen again. Much has been said about how early episodes talk big about conserving power and replicator rations and having finite shuttlecraft and photon torpedoes, but eventually they just kind of forget all that, never fussing about torpedoes again and having Tom Paris literally able to magic up the Delta Flyer. Early on, they even find an excuse to make an exception for powering the holodeck, so that the writing staff can pitch all those 'TNG holodeck episodes' they didn't get produced before TNG left our screens. This doesn't speak well for a production team so comfortable in how to write Star Trek, that they literally decide that the holodeck is on it's own power grid, because we wouldn't want to stretch ourselves and have to be creative and write a show without all those wacky holodeck escapades, eh??? I'll leave aside that they set up several recurring characters, like Samantha Wildman or Lt Joe Carey, and then don't use them except in flashback because the writers were all so anti-continuity that they *literally* forgot they hadn't killed them off!!! Compare to DS9, which introduced a colourful cast of non-regulars and then even managed to give them significant character growth that some of the *regular* characters across the franchise would envy. Heck, Morn doesn't even get dialogue, but feels more fleshed out than some of Star Trek's regulara. And then we get to the series finale, Endgame, timeshifts past the crew arriving home and having to adapt back to a Federation changed by a brutal and bloody war, the whole God damn *idea* of the show, and instead shows us the crew in the future having already adjusted, before becoming a lame redux of TNG's All Good Things, right down to using the same future uniforms. After spending seven years waiting to see a counterpoint to the pilot episode, with the crew coming home, we watch as Voyager's triumphant arrivial home is shown as news footage on a small background screen in the future, and the episode literally ends with a fade to credits as the ship approaches Earth, the titles 'Executive Producers: Rick Berman & Branon Braga' appears, and the show ends before we even see USS Voyager re-enter orbit. Rendering our whole journey and investment in these characters for seven seasons *completely pointless*. At the end of the day, Voyager is a show with untapped potential coming out it's wazoo. But which so fundamentally scuppers that potential in every single way early on, that the few times it actually managed to live up to it's own premise end up looking like accidents, while everybody is too busy playing it safe.
It just wouldn't be Janeway (or the Starfleet that we know). For her to say, "I quit! Let's park here and pitch our tents for good!" runs counter to Star Trek's ethos of optimism.
Optimism: a noble tradition in Starfleet since Phlox introduced it to them 2 centuries before ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ujoH9sai70 )
Perhaps you misunderstood the writer's Bible, as the show follows it quite closely. When they mention "set up possible situations for conflict between the Maquis characters and the Starfleet characters," they're specifically referring to B'elanna & Chakotay, and Tuvok, Kim, and Janeway. They do all this throughout the first two seasons. They also introduce people like Seska, Sudor, the Maquis in "Learning Curve," etc. All those stories are based on the Maquis/Starfleet conflict of interest. DS9 had about 5 Maquis episodes. Voyager had at least that many if not more dealing with this issue in their own way. DS9 turned the Maquis into adversaries. On Voyager, they have to work together. How long would it really take for two groups of people forced together by circumstance, and in a command structured environment to figure out how to work together? A month? 2 months? 6 months?! In real life, not long at all. In the Star Trek universe, even less time, as Star Trek humans have no ambitious aims on each other. The Maquis are Federation citizens with Federation values, and depicted as khaki wearing WASPs in over their heads. Voyager has to show things familiar once in a while. In part, it's fan service. With 26 episodes per season, they can afford to have one or so per year calling back to the universe of the other shows. Also in part, it's a useful way to remind the audience that all these shows take place in the same universe. You might as well complain about Scotty showing up on TNG, or Spock, or the DS9 crew inserting themselves into a TOS episode... They don't "fall back on the Borg." They introduce a Borg main character, and explore the Borg in many different ways. They aren't just repeating "Borg." There are actually very few episodes where they really run into the Borg(maybe 4 or 5), as opposed to episodes about Seven, or other random ex-Borg, or the effects of the Borg, etc. Did DS9 "fall back on the Klingons"? Also, ENT had one Ferengi episode. It was a comedy episode(fluff, not meant to be taken so seriously, like most comedy episodes and almost all Ferengi episodes), and was actually well done. It's surely better than 90% of the Ferengi episodes on DS9, which accounts for a lot of DS9 episodes. I guess DS9 couldn't help but fall back on the Ferengi. The overall premise of the show is "The Journey." The idea behind it was to have another "ship show," but to get away from all the familiar surroundings of TNG, as the creators were sick of it, and they sought to make every show unique. The purpose of the show(besides making money), and all Star Treks besides maybe DS9, is to have a platform to tell interesting sci fi stories, not to make an ongoing melodramatic soap opera. And there were many aliens that showed up multiple times besides the Borg, but they are always on the move(Yes, that's the premise! No, that's not something you can complain about) People like Holodeck episodes. Writers like writing them, but let's be honest, Voyager didn't use holodeck episodes any more than the other shows, and they didn't do a lot of "holodeck malfunction" episodes like TNG. They also used the holodeck realistically. They use it as a hangout, a bar, a beach, etc. It makes sense for the show. Voyager also had a Hologram main character. Maybe in your desperate, starving, war torn, everyone at each other's throats version of Voyager they could just keep the doctor turned off, and tell Bob Picardo to go home. They kept a count on Torpedoes through season 5, then abandoned it. It didn't make sense to continue it. Perhaps they could have included some dialogue saying "Make sure to by a couple hundred torpedos when you're down on that planet," or "This ____[insert raw element] can be used to restock our torpedo supply," but ultimately something like this is so incredibly minor in the grand scheme of things, I'm very troubled by how many times I've read the complaint here. I'm guessing the average 99 out of 100 people would never even think about it, and half the people that did would realize they could make or buy more off screen. Wait, what?! They didn't "set up" recurring characters. They just had them. They used Naomi Wildman, and sometimes her mom, throughout the show, likewise Vorik. The only person you're really talking about here is Joe Carrey, so here's a scenario that might help. Let's say the actor who played Carrey was always available to work during the first few seasons, then was busy with other work, and wasn't seen in season 3 and 4. So then in season 5, he's available, and they use him to call back to early Voyager. It turns out it was so effective, they do it again in the next season. It doesn't mean they thought he was dead! There were also about 6-12 characters who rarely had speaking parts, who are to be found in all seven seasons, then there's a ton of people who show up in 2 or more episodes, such as Sudor, Seska, Jonas, and that guy that dies collecting bones. There's also Barclay, Admiral Paris, Doctor Zimmerman, etc. Morn was set dressing, on ongoing joke, like Raktijino, or replicators breaking down. DS9 has recurring villains, a few recurring friends, and countless nameless nobodies in uniform, that are almost never explored. We never get to know any of those Bajorans in uniform, or Starfleet in uniform(except that one Latino guy). When someone in uniform starts having a lot of speaking lines, you just know they're going to die. As previously stated, the overall premise of the series is about the journey, and not the destination. We don't need to see them reunited with a bunch of people we don't know. The closing of the finale has to end on Janeway, and she has no one to be reunited with. Besides, DS9 did the opposite, and literally spelled out the conclusion of every single character on the series, complete with "flashbacks of the times we had." It was like the finale to Fresh Prince. Let Voyager do its own thing. Edit: The uniforms are a problem? If they're 30 years in the future, and we know what kind of uniforms get worn in that time period, they should use them! DS9 used the future uniforms as well. Voyager should get a strike for adhering to the continuity of the other two shows?! By worrying about the potential that you feel is untapped, you may have missed out on all the potential realized. Voyager was never going to be a DS9 in the delta quadrant. They wanted to do a Star Trek show where they can write sci fi stories. DS9 made for a good space opera, but their sci-fi stories(especially in the later seasons) were few and often terrible. Voyager kept doing great individual science fiction stories throughout its run. Some of the best are in the last season. And ironically, whenever Voyager did try a serialized melodrama, it was awful(see Seska Arc, and all its members). They figured out what they were good at early on and capitalized on it. This post reminds me of what I believe to be a major problem in modern, online pop culture criticism. It's like the moviegoer who buys a ticket, and then feels they're now in a legal contract with the artist(s) to to be entertained in accordance with their own preferences. And if the artist(s) fails to deliver on that perceived arrangement, then there is believed to be a "problem" or that something was done wrong, or some kind of mistake was made. In this case, it's all retroactive, which makes it worse. Doubly so on a thread by someone who has never seen the show and is in the process of viewing it(perhaps they have by this point). I would hate to color someone's viewing experience by unloading all my old baggage on them for a show I didn't like. I would only encourage them to watch it.
Wait, are we saying fans shouldn’t make excellent comments out of fear they may (quite correctly) turn someone off from watching VGR? If so, what’s the harm in not watching a poor series? It’s not the mission of Star Trek fans to support the franchise at its weakest out of fear it may lose what newcomers it has. This is the 21st century. People don’t just watch something without having a clue how it was received. I’m in fact finishing S7 for the first time for completeness (and likely relevance to PIC), but the dialogue is old-school trope after trope after trope. The show is not recommended, but some will still find reasons to watch it; no need to tread carefully.
No, because it's good etiquette to not color someone's expectations, especially negatively, when they go into a show for the first time. In my experience here, most newcomers to Voyager quite like it. And there have even been many here that have revisited it and also quite liked it. It's not a poor series, that's just like..your opinion(and there's no accounting for taste) If you wish to address any of my points, you are free to do so. I saw a long post with many of the same old grievances, which are sort of those often repeated things, many of which I don't feel are true, and others I feel are being held against one show, but not others. He apologized for the rant, then I felt bad for my own rant, and in turn was compelled to apologize also.
Sorry, but this is completely ridiculous, and a bit obnoxious. Look at the title. Read the first post again. The thread was created to solicit any opinions as to whether Voyager is worth the time. Critical comments would only be bad etiquette if the title was something like "Make The Case For Why I Should Watch Voyager," or "Sell Me On The Merits Of Voyager," or whatever. If you don't feel like reading negative commentary, skip over it, rather than telling others they're not allowed to write it. Just want to say, I think your whole post was awesome. And I say this from the perspective of someone who has recently come around to liking Voyager, after years of not particularly caring for it. It offers much to enjoy, but it's also a deeply flawed creation, for reasons your critique outlines exceptionally well.
When someone is about to watch or going through a show for the first time, it's good etiquette not to color their expectations with a long tirade of how it's awful and failed to live up to its potential in every single way. Why would that be a good thing to do? Especially if it can be shown to not be the case? Think of all the people going to see the new Star Wars movies, or new Star Trek that go on YouTube or elsewhere and end up outraged and hating the thing before they see it. There's nothing more persuasive than a perceived popular opinion, or popular narrative. And there's nothing more contagious than outrage.
I'm rewatching it again now, and I'm going against my own advice when I did myself a rewatch list and just watching the whole shebang. I guess I just find even the odd part of even in the worst episodes decent. I will listen to my advice and skip The Fight and the Fair Haven crap though. I'm about three quarters through season two - when it's good, it's really good. When it's bad, just go on your phone or laptop to divert you until the next one comes. I think it was very ill-advised to make the Maquis crew less of a threat in season one at least. I also liked the ongoing Seska/Kazon/traitor arc that showed they were trying to do something bigger. Though the way Neelix was involved showed poor overall follow-through.