I believe DS9 was intentionally ended in such a way that movies could not be made, or at least I've heard that the showrunner stated something to the effect. Everyone was split up. Of course, if they really wanted to, they would just have them get back together during the movie.
For Voyager it could have started with an anniversary reunion and something happens to a member of the crew or the Borg attack and the Voyager museum is the only ship within range or whatever... Janeway can't replicate a pot roast and someone has to find peanut butter real quick!!! (as Trip would say) The possibilities are endless.
movies? both ds9 and voy brought their stories to a conclusion. ds9 the leader disappeared and "the band broke up." with voy they returned to earth, end of story. with voy, i doubt anyone on that crew would ever want to see that ship again. tos, tng, and (to a lesser degree) ent were open ended, the story could continue to new adventures with the same crew.
According to those in charge, ENT was even intended to be so open ended that, despite the death of a major regular character, they could pick up their adventures for a fifth season if necessary with the plot simply becoming a 'future episode', ie season five would just pick up from Terra Prime and tell the gap of what happened in the interim. Yes it offers some resolution, but could so easily have also just been a quirky episode outside the chonological timeframe. It very carefully tries to leave room for the show to go on afterwards should it be picked up again. DS9, or VOY, coming back would require a significant change of format as both shows 'closed the door'. To this day ENT never really has.
A lot of criticism in this thread. OK, I must admit that there are some aspects I'm unhappy with when it comes to Voyager. I didn't like that Kes was dumped. I didn't like how the other characters were shoved in the background when Seven was brought in and there are some episodes I wish never had been made. Most notably a certain insulting s**t episode in season 6 which never would have been made, "Endgame" which should have been completely different and "Message in A Bottle" which ruined the premise of the series. To be honest, I'm not that fond of "Mortal Coil" and "The Gift" either. But despite this, I must state that Voyager was a good show! it did have some flaws but it also did have a great premise and a set of excellent and likeable characters. There are those who had wwanted a "darker" show. Not me, I like it as it was. There are some who had wanted more friction between the Starfleet crew and the Maquis crew. I have to disagree here too because all the Maquis, even Seska realized that Voyager was the best possible, if not the only possible way home. Personally I'm happy that there never were that bickering between factions that we had to see in Stargate Universe. One poster wrote that "Voyager has aged badly". I must disagree here. But if that statement is based on a comparision with today's so-called SF-series, I must take it as a compliment to Voyager. I'm happy that Voyager never sunk to the low level of NuBSG, NuTrek and Star Trek Disaster, ooops sorry Discovery. I mean, today's SF-series makes ENT look like a masterpiece! So for whatever its worth, I still find Voyager highly watchable and there are many aspects of the show I still like!
If they really wanted to make sure no movies were made, they should have taken it a bit further. You know, let every main character perish in a horrible accident that also destroys the entire station, or some such thing ... it just would have the drawback of making the final episode a tad depressing, I suppose On a slightly more serious note (and perhaps this is a dumb question): when wrapping up the series, why would they want to preclude the possibility of a movie in the first place ?
The truth is that many shows (of all kinds) come to an end because they have been failing for awhile and need to close the book. VOY had been struggling for a very long time, and there was absolutely no momentum to throw millions of dollars into putting it on the big screen when it couldn't even attract enough viewers on its main platform of TV. No one would consider that to be a sensible investment in light of all of that. It had its moments, but certainly not enough to warrant a jump to the big screen.
Like DS9, Voyager was planned from the outset to run for exactly 7 seasons. When in its 6th season, Paramount demanded another Star Trek show to replace it immediately after it ended. It was their highest rated show(and second highest after the network purchased wwf/wwe in the last season or 2), so it must have been profitable. Voyager also had the largest budget of any Star Trek show until Discovery.
A big budget just means that something will be flashy and showy, there's no guarantee it will have any substance of merit--look at how many big budget films flop.
In what way does substance or merit, or "flashy and showy" relate to my comment? The poster said "Voyager was struggling for a long time" in a financial sense, but that clearly isn't the case. When a show struggles, it gets its budget cut. I don't believe this ever happened on Voyager. I think they actually got an increase later on. This doesn't mean they had unlimited funds for "flashy and showy" DS9 had a budget comparable to Voyager. And Almost all of the first ten Trek movies were flashy and showy on a smaller budget, and much less substantive than the tv shows. In contrast, Enterprise had their budget cut 3 times
That is definitely not what I was saying. I was speaking of audience numbers, and the inability to justify throwing more money at making a film when the ratings indicated they wouldn't be able to fill a single theater. The fact that they kept throwing money at the show and it still kept failing only sealed its fate.
If there was never a goal to make a Voyager film, then it never failed in that goal. The goal was to run series for 7 years. It did not fail, or "continue failing." The story was concluded when it was always intended to be concluded. Enterprise was also supposed to run for 7 years, so in that case, you could say it "failed." Even if the studio did have plans for Voyager film, it would not have been made, and through no fault of the show, as the box office flop of Nemesis cancelled the 5th tng film, and any plans for new star trek films, and also the ratings plummet during season 1 of Enterprise caused massive turnover and reconfiguring of the brand. Voyager did have enough recognition to get guest appearances on 2 films.
TNG was a huge ratings success, even in its last year, and an annual cash cow. The primary reason why it was taken off of the air is because Paramount felt that they could make even more money off of it on the big screen. TNG's final season saw ratings in the area of 11-13 million viewers. The finale drew 17 million folks. It also drew peer praise with the Emmy nod for Outstanding Drama Series. The other three shows didn't hit the same viewership ratings. DS9 did 18 million on its premiere, but was doing 4.5 million in the last season. Voyager's premiered at 19 million folks, but the final season had numbers in the area of 4-5 million people (exception being the finale which hit 8.8) ENT drew 12 million folks for its premiere, but struggled to keep above 3 million viewers for its final season - and only went to 3.8 for its finale. Again, these are just ratings numbers. But these are really the metric by which studio's view profits, because they can only charge advertising based off of how many people are actually watching the show.
Enjoy! But, psychologically, Voyager was bland, flat, and a darker premise would've earned the return home. You want puff? It's all yours. But, if the Kazon had destroyed Voyage, they continued their arduous Trek home in another ship, these would be tearful moments; catharsis--the slipstream ship that returns them to Federation technology (they already had a ship that functioned) and the moment they entered Earth's atmosphere (it was a merry ride, we should that more often!). She made the decision, faced the perils of hell (a journey of a hero in classic literature) and returned them home. Was the trilogy of II, III, and IV dark? Did Khan win, Kirk a weak leader? Was Kirk's sacrifice of career and ship not a testimony of friendship? Wasn't the hull of A earned? "My friends, we've come home." Enjoy. But, we're not asking for a darker Trek, just an earned one.
A Star Trek show is not just "one thing," but many. It explores different genres, different tones, and all sorts of different styles. This is true of every series. Voyager could do grimdark just as good as or better than any of the other shows, but that's not going to be every episode. In what should be DS9's most serious and dark season(season 6), when they start a "ww2" arc, it lasts 6 episodes, then is moved to the background. Then there are numerous comedy episodes, a campy mirror universe episode, 3 time travel episodes, a couple romance episode, a donny brasco in space episode, etc. If the season were only 10 episodes long, then they could commit to a single storyline, and a single tone, but that's not what Star Trek is. Its strengths lay in its diverse storytelling, and flexibility. It's more sophisticated than a soap opera in space. Getting rid of the ship is a terrible idea, and it probably would have gotten rid of half the audience. The ship is one of the main characters. Also, I'm not sure what is supposed to be "earned" here. Is it their making it back to earth? If so, then surely they have done enough, or that is simply a criticism of the finale, a single episode.
Their main mistake was to get Voyager much closer to home in a couple of years and then to open communications with Earth. It totally ruined the concept.