Ron Moore's Voyager

[Anwar]

Going from the show, yeah they were represented equally as they are all referred to as "The crew" and not "My crew and the Maquis". It's just that they didn't have a lot to go complain to Chakotay about when they realized they had to work together to survive.

 

[Sci]

Going from the show, yeah they were represented equally as they are all referred to as "The crew" and not "My crew and the Maquis".

It's not equality when you're expected to give up your identity and subordinate yourself to someone else's power structure. Equality would be allowing the Maquis to remain Maquis while still working with them peacefully to run the ship.

 

[exodus]

not to mention how the Maquis conflict ended quickly on that show too.

Not nearly so quickly as it ended on Voyager, which was after the very first episode. DS9 devoted at least 4 episodes to the Maquis off the top of my head. Besides, the Maquis weren't a main element of the DS9 show like they were with Voyager.

The series premise for Voyager called for the Maquis conflict to be a factor throughout the whole series.

Intergration of the Maquis crew into Voyager's lasted longer than a year. The conflicts with Be'lanna, giving the Maquis equal ranking jobs, "Meld", "Learning Curve", "Investigations" all the way up to "Basics" involved elements of crew intergration.

Maquis conflict a factor thought out the series? I'm going to assume that's a typo because they would have to have serious emotional issues to still have conflict with people they've seen and lived with 24/7 for 7 years straight. The Maquis/Federation conflict is political not personal. Outsides their political/government influence and away from the conflict, neither side has any more cause to fight each other. Besides, they're both from the Federation, were people are raised to seek peaceful solution before fighting. Remember, they supposed to be better than us.

Sci: you are your personality not the political party you attach yourself too. The Maquis didn't give up any identity intergrating into a Starfleet crew. They already subordinated themselves to another power structure when they willingly accepted living under Cardassian rule and gave up Federation protection over dirt.

 

[JoeZhang]

I'm going to assume that's a typo because they would have to have serious emotional issues to still have conflict with people they've seen and lived with 24/7 for 7 years straight.

But that's the whole heart of the problem with Voyager it has no emotional truth - in a 7 year period, people could have got married, divorced and hated each other but people were as stiff in the last episode as in the first.

 

[exodus]

I'm going to assume that's a typo because they would have to have serious emotional issues to still have conflict with people they've seen and lived with 24/7 for 7 years straight.

But that's the whole heart of the problem with Voyager it has no emotional truth - in a 7 year period, people could have got married, divorced and hated each other but people were as stiff in the last episode as in the first.

So what makes that any different than life we saw on the Enterprise?

 

[kimc]

Just what concessions were you expecting them to make? Either they were going to run as a Starfleet vessel or they weren't. When you're on the run and far from home is hardly the time to invent a new system on the fly.

I'm a bit late, but this is exactly the time to invent a new system on the fly. The system wasn't designed to cope with a stranded ship depending on a hostile force to provide 1/3 of the crew. And to some extent, they did invent a new system. The normal Starfleet system does not pick up roving junk traders and make them fake ambassadors, or appoint/impress wanted criminals into the ship's company..

The fact that the system was malleable meant everyone should have been trying to change it, not just the captain. Real people try to change organizations, formally or informally, in ways that benefit them or that they perceive to be altruistic. The fact that Voyager's crew didn't just reflects how poorly they were characterized.

No one is going to argue with you against making adjustments as necessary. I was referring to trashing the system altogether. Hope that clarifies things.

 

[JoeZhang]

I'm going to assume that's a typo because they would have to have serious emotional issues to still have conflict with people they've seen and lived with 24/7 for 7 years straight.

But that's the whole heart of the problem with Voyager it has no emotional truth - in a 7 year period, people could have got married, divorced and hated each other but people were as stiff in the last episode as in the first.

So what makes that any different than life we saw on the Enterprise?

That people could come and go as they pleased? It's comparing Chalk and cheese, the premise of any shows featuring Enterprise was never "it's just us". You either have people deal with the fact that they might never go home or you simply don't bother and just have them have a series of random adventures - which we is what we got.

There are all sorts of interesting ideas that come out of the premise - what if the only person who can manage the engines is a scumbag? What if he wants things in return. what do you do if members of the crew decide the captain is wrong? etc etc

And it's fine to say "oh but it's the future, everyone gets along" but I don't live in the future and I don't find the sorts of sterile interaction and lack of internal conflict particular interesting to watch (and thank god, with the new film, we've gone back the other way).

 

[Praetor]

Despite the fact that there were 'references' to the crew integration throughout season one in specifically story-relevant episodes, I don't think anyone has yet pointed out the fact that the decision to join crews and adopt Starfleet mores and uniforms took place off screen sometime after the climax of 'Caretaker' and the beginning of Janeway's end speech.

I have always hated that.

Ron Moore would have actually shown that discussion, and actually explored it. Hell, he would have probably made the third episode about it, at least.

 

[exodus]

But that's the whole heart of the problem with Voyager it has no emotional truth - in a 7 year period, people could have got married, divorced and hated each other but people were as stiff in the last episode as in the first.

So what makes that any different than life we saw on the Enterprise?

That people could come and go as they pleased? It's comparing Chalk and cheese, the premise of any shows featuring Enterprise was never "it's just us". You either have people deal with the fact that they might never go home or you simply don't bother and just have them have a series of random adventures - which we is what we got.

There are all sorts of interesting ideas that come out of the premise - what if the only person who can manage the engines is a scumbag? What if he wants things in return. what do you do if members of the crew decide the captain is wrong? etc etc

And it's fine to say "oh but it's the future, everyone gets along" but I don't live in the future and I don't find the sorts of sterile interaction and lack of internal conflict particular interesting to watch (and thank god, with the new film, we've gone back the other way).

That's cool, for you but I would say there are those that disagree. There were enough that found the show good enough to tune in and have it last 7 years. The conflict on DS9 was good enough, having it embrace two Trek shows running side by side is redundant.

 

[Sci]

Sci: you are your personality not the political party you attach yourself too. The Maquis didn't give up any identity intergrating into a Starfleet crew. They already subordinated themselves to another power structure when they willingly accepted living under Cardassian rule and gave up Federation protection over dirt.

Your political and national identity is PART of your overall identity. To be forced to join a military service by itself would require being forced to give up part of your identity as a civilian to accommodate someone else's ideas about how a ship you didn't choose to join ought to be run, and that in itself is a bit tyrannous. To force someone to give up one political identity as a separatist and subordinate themselves to the nation and the national military that they had previously rejected to become separatists -- and all to fulfill Janeway's closed-minded presumption that the Starfleet way to run the ship is the only valid way to run the ship -- is out and out imperialistic. It would be like 18th Century Britain forcing citizens of the new United States to become part of the Royal Navy.

And, really, what right did Janeway have to demand that they join Starfleet? She needed them to run the ship, and Starfleet was 75,000 light-years away. Why SHOULDN'T the Maquis, as an organization, be treated equally to Starfleet in the running of the ship? Why SHOULDN'T an entirely new command structure be generated? Hell, why shouldn't the Starfleet officers abandon Starfleet and become Maquis, for that matter?

The decision to force the Maquis to join Starfleet was Federation-centric at best, and out and out imperialistic at worst.

 

[JustKate]

Sci, I agree that it was high-handed. But come on - isn't that what captains do? Give orders? It was her ship. She was the boss. Since when is a ship a democracy?

I suppose there must be ship's captains who aren't high-handed, and maybe there will be some in the future, too, but I expect there won't be very many.

 

[exodus]

Sci: you are your personality not the political party you attach yourself too. The Maquis didn't give up any identity intergrating into a Starfleet crew. They already subordinated themselves to another power structure when they willingly accepted living under Cardassian rule and gave up Federation protection over dirt.

Your political and national identity is PART of your overall identity. To be forced to join a military service by itself would require being forced to give up part of your identity as a civilian to accommodate someone else's ideas about how a ship you didn't choose to join ought to be run, and that in itself is a bit tyrannous. To force someone to give up one political identity as a separatist and subordinate themselves to the nation and the national military that they had previously rejected to become separatists -- and all to fulfill Janeway's closed-minded presumption that the Starfleet way to run the ship is the only valid way to run the ship -- is out and out imperialistic. It would be like 18th Century Britain forcing citizens of the new United States to become part of the Royal Navy.

And, really, what right did Janeway have to demand that they join Starfleet? She needed them to run the ship, and Starfleet was 75,000 light-years away. Why SHOULDN'T the Maquis, as an organization, be treated equally to Starfleet in the running of the ship? Why SHOULDN'T an entirely new command structure be generated? Hell, why shouldn't the Starfleet officers abandon Starfleet and become Maquis, for that matter?

The decision to force the Maquis to join Starfleet was Federation-centric at best, and out and out imperialistic at worst.

Aren't you being a little extreme here?

Have we forgotten that many of the Maquis were people like Suder, Paris & Torres. People who didn't even believe in the cause, they just joined to satisfy their aggressive & anti-social tendancies. If most of them weren't "forced" into the military, they'd probably be locked up. The only one with political stake in the Maquis cause was Chakotay.

 

[JoeZhang]

Sci, I agree that it was high-handed. But come on - isn't that what captains do? Give orders? It was her ship. She was the boss. Since when is a ship a democracy?

but that's the whole point! she couldn't run the ship without them, they have a powerbase we never saw exploited.

It was only *her* ship if people agreed it was her ship.

The idea that a ship *isn't* a democracy but then a third of the crew say "why not?" is an interesting story idea more so than "yes Captain!"

 

[kimc]

And, really, what right did Janeway have to demand that they join Starfleet?

She had that right as the captain. However, it was less a demand and more of an agreement she made with the Maquis captain.

She needed them to run the ship, and Starfleet was 75,000 light-years away.

Yes, and the Maquis were equally in need. They were 75,000 light-years away and Voyager was their only ticket home.

Why SHOULDN'T the Maquis, as an organization, be treated equally to Starfleet in the running of the ship?

Um, it was a Starfleet ship. Janeway had every right to keep them all in the brig for the trip back or leave them on a planet somewhere. Instead she worked out a deal to make them full-fledged members of her crew with all the same rights and responsibilities.

Why SHOULDN'T an entirely new command structure be generated?

Actually, it was. When Cavitt died the most logical person to replace him as First Officer was Tuvok. Janeway chose Chakotay instead as a way to unite the two crews. She also chose B'Elanna as Chief Engineer over another a Starfleeter who had more seniority and qualifications.

Hell, why shouldn't the Starfleet officers abandon Starfleet and become Maquis, for that matter?

If that's what they truly wanted they could have done so back in the Federation.

 

[JustKate]

Sci, I agree that it was high-handed. But come on - isn't that what captains do? Give orders? It was her ship. She was the boss. Since when is a ship a democracy?

but that's the whole point! she couldn't run the ship without them, they have a powerbase we never saw exploited.

It was only *her* ship if people agreed it was her ship.

The idea that a ship *isn't* a democracy but then a third of the crew say "why not?" is an interesting story idea more so than "yes Captain!"

As I think I've mentioned before (but I could be getting various threads confused), I agree that there should have been some conflict about it - the first season should have at least partly consisted of the two parallel crews trying to figure out a way to work together and become one crew. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect a ship's captain to start acting as though the topic of who's in command is up for a vote. It's not. If you don't like the captain, you suck up and obey anyway while trying to find a way to moderate his/her actions, or you mutiny.

Edit: That's not Federation-centric. That's just the way captains are - at least that's how high-ranking military officers are (I've never actually known a ship's captain, but I've known officers of other high ranks).

 

[TheGodBen]

Despite the fact that there were 'references' to the crew integration throughout season one in specifically story-relevant episodes, I don't think anyone has yet pointed out the fact that the decision to join crews and adopt Starfleet mores and uniforms took place off screen sometime after the climax of 'Caretaker' and the beginning of Janeway's end speech.

I have always hated that.

Ron Moore would have actually shown that discussion, and actually explored it. Hell, he would have probably made the third episode about it, at least.

Ron Moore would have written the scene alright, but the episode would run over by 30 minutes and it would have been cut.

 

[kimc]

Despite the fact that there were 'references' to the crew integration throughout season one in specifically story-relevant episodes, I don't think anyone has yet pointed out the fact that the decision to join crews and adopt Starfleet mores and uniforms took place off screen sometime after the climax of 'Caretaker' and the beginning of Janeway's end speech.

I have always hated that.

Ron Moore would have actually shown that discussion, and actually explored it. Hell, he would have probably made the third episode about it, at least.

Ron Moore would have written the scene alright, but the episode would run over by 30 minutes and it would have been cut.

But the cut footage would have appeared on the dvd release.

 

[Praetor]

Despite the fact that there were 'references' to the crew integration throughout season one in specifically story-relevant episodes, I don't think anyone has yet pointed out the fact that the decision to join crews and adopt Starfleet mores and uniforms took place off screen sometime after the climax of 'Caretaker' and the beginning of Janeway's end speech.

I have always hated that.

Ron Moore would have actually shown that discussion, and actually explored it. Hell, he would have probably made the third episode about it, at least.

Ron Moore would have written the scene alright, but the episode would run over by 30 minutes and it would have been cut.

But the cut footage would have appeared on the dvd release.

Spot on.

 

[exodus]

Sci, I agree that it was high-handed. But come on - isn't that what captains do? Give orders? It was her ship. She was the boss. Since when is a ship a democracy?

but that's the whole point! she couldn't run the ship without them, they have a powerbase we never saw exploited.

It was only *her* ship if people agreed it was her ship.

The idea that a ship *isn't* a democracy but then a third of the crew say "why not?" is an interesting story idea more so than "yes Captain!"

Weren't Seska & Lt. Jonas examples of crew members that were going to co-operate? Look what happened to them.

However, I think we're all missing a key factor here and that's "Basics". No matter what conflict (big or small) there was before, both crews would need to get along to survive that planet they were left on. Chakotay created fire & has the skills to rescue Neelix & Kes from the natives. Tuovk created the weapons to defend themselves against the cave monster. Both sides combining their skills got them through it.

 

[ltcmmanderdata]

ron moore would have made an interesting voyager it would have been alot like nubsg