• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

New To Voyager

In a better world, they wouldn't have needed Borg Babe to shore up sagging ratings, but I'm glad they did. What made Seven work is she wasn't presented like a typical dumb blonde character seen on other shows.

It's a lot like Loni Anderson's Jennifer Marlowe character on WKRP in Cincinnati-- a stunning knockout who was intelligent, capable, professional, and able to use other people's preconceptions of her against them.
 
In a better world, they wouldn't have needed Borg Babe to shore up sagging ratings, but I'm glad they did. What made Seven work is she wasn't presented like a typical dumb blonde character seen on other shows.

It's a lot like Loni Anderson's Jennifer Marlowe character on WKRP in Cincinnati-- a stunning knockout who was intelligent, capable, professional, and able to use other people's preconceptions of her against them.

Though you're right about Loni Andersons' character, I always thought the other lady was more stunning..whatever her name was.
 
Also, the whole Maquis thing. I'm of the opinion that a character or concept is best if it's basics can be described in one sentence. Imagine watching Voyager with someone who doesn't watch Star Trek. Imagine trying to answer their questions about this stuff without the feeling that for them this is just getting too involved to spend time on. I think this is a large part of the perception that Star Trek is too weird to watch. Answering the question of "What's that thing over his eyes?", or "Why does he have pointed ears?" was one thing, those were easy to grasp. The Maquis thing I think was just too much, for I think even many of us weren't 100% fluent enough in it to answer. And for what little payoff there ended up being with them in the series, I really don't believe they were worth it.

I strongly disagree with that. Television shows should give respect to the intelligence of the audience and not assume they have no attention span. Especially science fiction shows.

People who don't have enough attention span to listen to the second sentence probably don't like science fiction anyway.
 
Though you're right about Loni Andersons' character, I always thought the other lady was more stunning..whatever her name was.
Jan Smithers as Bailey Quarters. I liked Bailey too, but she was presented as the counterpart to Jennifer-- lacking confidence, a crush on Andy, and portrayed as a mousy type because she wore glasses. But Jan wasn't mousy at all.

Sad part is, Jan and Bailey and Andy are all in my brain for fast retrieval.
 
I strongly disagree with that. Television shows should give respect to the intelligence of the audience and not assume they have no attention span. Especially science fiction shows.

People who don't have enough attention span to listen to the second sentence probably don't like science fiction anyway.

And paradoxically, I agree with you. :) There is much value in complex characters and such. But I think this can be done as a process of discovery. I just think it's easier to lure people in with something that's initially simple to grasp.

Imperfect example from my youth: my first issue of Iron Man. It was interesting but I wondered what was the deal with the woman in the gold face mask. But I got the basics: she was Tony Stark's girlfriend. Same with this Jack of Hearts guy: he was a good guy who fought alongside Iron Man. Jasper Sitwell: he had some issues, seemed to be a conflicted good guy. Etc., etc. The story was interesting enough to persuade me to read the next issue. Then the next. It wasn't too long before I understood all their backgrounds and motivations. It all got fairly complicated, with years of back-story leading up to that initial issue I'd read. If all of that information had been crammed into that one first issue, I likely would've drifted away. Too much like homework. :lol:

I really don't see television as being very different. I can't envision hoards of casual viewers getting hooked by a complicated back-story right from the get-go, is all I'm really saying. It seems to work for other types of series, but Star Trek seems to be its' own animal in this regard, perhaps because of years of assumptions and unfair preconceptions. I don't think it's insulting to anyone, I think it's just giving them information in doses, rather than overloading them with what initially seems meaningless.

I've got a pretty healthy attention span, but I'm not about to expect others to go for all of this Star Trek stuff the way I did. But if they stick around, they're in for a lot of fun provided they don't get scared off right from the get-go. At least that's been my experience.
 
In a better world, they wouldn't have needed Borg Babe to shore up sagging ratings, but I'm glad they did. What made Seven work is she wasn't presented like a typical dumb blonde character seen on other shows.

It's a lot like Loni Anderson's Jennifer Marlowe character on WKRP in Cincinnati-- a stunning knockout who was intelligent, capable, professional, and able to use other people's preconceptions of her against them.

I was always way more into Bailey.

But then, I was mostly 3 to 6 years young when that show was rerun ad infinitum in the dinky 2 station network servicing the Banana Republic that tolerates my existence.
 
I get the impression that the producers realized the audience just wasn't going for the whole "Delta Quadrant-Ship in constant peril" thing, so they threw in the towel and committed the show, once and for all, to being TNG-lite; unchallenging comfort food for the TNG-TOS fanbase. They ditched the Ocampan, pushed the Talaxan to the background and brought on a former-villain-turned-ally character (like Worf in TNG). From then on, they concentrated on the Captain, The Dr. (Voyager's Data) and 7 of 9. Also, they replaced the cute blonde w the hot blonde.
 
One thing that was interesting is the "Can we trust the Maquis?" undercurrent was never done as successfully as the "Can we trust Seven?" storylines.
 
I really enjoyed "Mortal Coil". Very interesting in dealing with the afterlife. Also I don't usually care for children on tv shows but Naomi is adorable! After I finished the episode I did a search to see when she appears again. I was saddened to learn that I won't see her until S5:(

On an unrelated note, I hate Janeway's current hairstyle. Can't wait for it to grow out a bit.

And she's played by someone else.
 
One thing that was interesting is the "Can we trust the Maquis?" undercurrent was never done as successfully as the "Can we trust Seven?" storylines.

Did Chak ever have a duplicitous streak, or even a touch of menace? No, no, no. Just didn't have it in him.

B'Elanna, lots of yelling and posturing but that wasn't Maquis it was default Klingon. So, meh.

They would have had to elevate a minor character into being clever, which Chak clearly was not up for, and that would have made them a bigger player. Seska was the best we got but her story turned personal and was ultimately more interesting than Cardassian land grabs.
 
I would have preferred Seska as the onboard resident troublemaker, without any of the "surgically altered Cardassian" crap. I wished they'd kept her in Bajoran mode for several years instead of doing away with her. But that's because I liked Martha Hackett's work and her looks.
 
After Tom, she'd go after Harry, who probably would have fallen under her spell. Eventually it would turn out the only man who could make an honest woman out of her was Neelix, whom she despised.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top