OldManDax said:
1. A strange appeal to presumed fan preferences: "The writers tried to do X/Y/Z, the fans/viewers didn't like it, why try it again?".
2. A kind of simplistic everything-should-be-okay appeal to diversity ("why does every show have to be alike?"), as if VOY's well-established laziness were some kind of mark of thoughtful uniqueness instead of, more often than not, laziness and a kind of shoehorning of Trek into the least common denominator.
4. Relatedly, a kind of lowering the bar ("if Kirk/Picard/Sisko doesn't get criticized for it, why criticize Janeway for the same action?"), somehow ignoring the fact that the Captains were supposed to be different characters with different circumstances.
5. A kind of fill in the gaps/use your imagination approach to what we saw (or more often, DIDN'T see) on the screen. For instance, the rather far-fetched excuses about how the ship could repeatedly look so shiny and new, or how they magically seemed to never really run out of supplies.
The very disingenuous first cousin of this argument: "Who would want to see a whole episode about (fill in the blanks)", as if the viewer somehow wanting to be shown how things actually got done, actually going on "the journey" that VOY was supposed to be about, is some kind of desire to see a PBS-style documentary.
Another one of my favorites: by the time of VOY, Starfleet had learned so much about and adapted to the BORG so well, that its completely feasible that VOY would go flying into BORG cubes/spheres, that Janeway & Co. would get themselves assimilated on purpose, that the crew would basically have no fear when it comes to the BORG, that Janeway's knowledge, combined with her much-bandied about guile and the "love and loyalty" of her family, could defeat the beings who took out whole fleets in the AQ.
Umm, yeah, o.k.
6. Close cousin #2: It's a sci-fi show. If we accept transporter technology, replicators, and ships capable of warp speed, why should ANYTHING - like constant time-jumping, twisting, and manipulation - be off-limits?
7. Finally a kind of "can't-we-all-just-get-along" ethic, accompanied with the idea that Trek fans (especially the ones that criticize Voyager) are merely overly critical, nitpicky crybabies.
I don't come here often but this is an interesting list. So here goes.
1.This is rather cryptic. Do you object to people saying that DS9 wasn't popular so Voyager wasn't intended to be like DS9. I expect that would be uncongenial to DS9 fans but it's true, so far as it goes. If you meant something else, I have no idea what.
2.Presumes the conclusion. What laziness has been alleged as unique to Voyager, much less well established? Confusing uniqueness with the least common denominator would be very wicked. Such perfidy should be argued, as well as alleged.
3.I am at a loss to refute this argument.
4.You're not really arguing for inconsistency here, are you?
Objecting to criticisms of Janeway for "torture" of a criminal while not criticizing Ransom for murder of innocents is raising the bar, permitting only sensible arguments in my opinion.
5a.The shiny ship with no lack of creature comforts is exactly what is to be expected from technology with replicators and such. What was silly, from the beginning, was drivel about lack of resources or complaints about repairs. If they lacked resources, if they sustained heavy damage, Voyager would have taken 70 000 years just to get to the next star system! There would
not have been any dark and gritty survivalist epic where mean people fighting with each other patch up the ship and struggle home. Stuff like that really is filling in the gaps. Where do patches etc. come from?
5b.An episode about how the ship got fixed really would have been a story about technology instead of people. You're just wrong on that point. Technical issues were mostly addressed in asides instead. This was in fact a wise decision since Trek writers don't know enough science for a gadget story.
Not being able to suspend disbelief in replicator technology must be a horrible obstacle to watching Trek, but how is this problem unique to Voyager?
5c.Ah, the Borg. Your mistake is thinking the unstoppable Borg were genuinely believable. You obviously prefer them but that is not at all the same thing. The stoppable Borg are perfectly plausible. If it irks you to see them stopped, so be it. But that's your problem.
6.Some stuff really is off-limits, because the premises are inconsistent or because they are not even fictional science but simply contradict basic science. But how is this problem unique to Voyager?
7.Why, we don't have to all get along. The board rules say we shouldn't be personally rude to each other.
So far, to be honest, the objections are vague or have no specific relevance to Voyager or are just plain ridiculous.
But that doesn't mean that what we got was "just fine" - the show was too often weak, tepid, and afraid to try anything different, that didn't constantly tell us how moral and noble and strong and powerful Janeway (and, by extension, anyone who adopted her pov, or moral disposition)was, and how we should always cheer for Our Intrepid Crew (TM). Even those of us who like the show (or like myself, like certain things about the show)) shouldn't pretend otherwise, or constantly employ endlessly belabored arguments that justify the VOY writers' laziness.
Although the objection isn't in the numbered list for some reason, the moral and noble and strong and powerful Janeway plainly got on your nerves. It is amazing that you think this criticism is specific to Voyager. It also ignores quite a few episodes of the show where it specifically does not apply.
Generally, Voyager is not sappy idealism nor is DS9 unflinching honesty. DS9, Voyager and Enterprise are all Berman Trek and they all bear the marks of their origin, which is not-Roddenberry.
There is a learning curve. Berman got better at Berman Trek as he went on. DS9 is crammed with fantastic characters with astonishing abilities, mystical destinies, amazing secrets about their births, etc. ad nauseam. By Enterprise, there is hardly a super power to be found.
).
