Why do Star Trek fans hate Voyager? - Link

[Anwar]

Probably. The idea is to work around limits not complain about them.

VOY had it a lot harder than any of its predecessors in this regard.

Yes it did. But, Trek has dealt with larger ensembles before, so it is not something new to Trek, and should have not been a huge obstacle to their success.

To be honest, I don't think the ensemble thing worked for TNG. DS9 got it to work due to their big Galactic War story but even then you could exclude certain central characters and nothing would change.

Sure, but the idea is deeper and more extensive than Trek had attempted before.

Not by THAT much, really.

Sure. But, irrelevant to this discussion. Defending VOY by pointing out where things were done better in other science fiction doesn't help support the idea that the audience was negative towards VOY for no reason.

Those other examples had advantages VOY didn't.

It's a trope of DW. Not the same idea as Trek. Two different premises and two different standards.

The Borg pretty much are the Cybermen, except DW (rightfully) doesn't treat them like some big Universal threat and sees them for the Robo-Zombies they are.

Often times the things that were stronger were either one of kind, or a unique society that is dismantled by the crew through solving the problem.

Still, they're examples of beings superior to the Borg.

[quote[It can rest with multiple people, but when sources are pointing towards the writers, and producers, then there is reason to believe that was a problem.[/quote]

The only one I've known to do this was Ron Moore, and he's a whiner.

Again, the idea of a creative staff is to overcome problems, not surrender to them.

VOY had more problems than the prior Treks.

Um, no. DS9 did it

DS9 had a lot of work done for it by having the entire Universe be pre-made already.

and VOY had a whole new quadrant.

A whole new Quadrant the audience was ready to tear to pieces by day one.

How about having an old empire, now defunct, that had fallen in to disarray, resulting in scattering of pieces, with some races pursuing EVERY piece of this technology.

TNG already did that a few times, it would just be seen as a TNG knock-off.

There is so much that can be done. It started off with a fresh box, offering different takes and possible conflicts among the crew, but it was too formulaic.

It started off his hostility from its viewers, and several unsustainable plot points.

I get that, that is understandable. Take steps to correct that.

The problem was that no matter what, their corrections would be met with hostility.

Again, the facts do not support this, and if the audience hated it so much, as keeps being asserted, then why did the Borg come back again and again?

The Borg they liked, the 8472 not so much. Which is why they made only 1 more appearance before the writers realized no one liked them and they had to get rid of them.

 

[fireproof78]

Probably. The idea is to work around limits not complain about them.

VOY had it a lot harder than any of its predecessors in this regard.

Yes it did. But, Trek has dealt with larger ensembles before, so it is not something new to Trek, and should have not been a huge obstacle to their success.

To be honest, I don't think the ensemble thing worked for TNG. DS9 got it to work due to their big Galactic War story but even then you could exclude certain central characters and nothing would change.



Not by THAT much, really.



Those other examples had advantages VOY didn't.



The Borg pretty much are the Cybermen, except DW (rightfully) doesn't treat them like some big Universal threat and sees them for the Robo-Zombies they are.



Still, they're examples of beings superior to the Borg.

[quote[It can rest with multiple people, but when sources are pointing towards the writers, and producers, then there is reason to believe that was a problem.

The only one I've known to do this was Ron Moore, and he's a whiner.



VOY had more problems than the prior Treks.



DS9 had a lot of work done for it by having the entire Universe be pre-made already.



A whole new Quadrant the audience was ready to tear to pieces by day one.



TNG already did that a few times, it would just be seen as a TNG knock-off.

There is so much that can be done. It started off with a fresh box, offering different takes and possible conflicts among the crew, but it was too formulaic.

It started off his hostility from its viewers, and several unsustainable plot points.

I get that, that is understandable. Take steps to correct that.

The problem was that no matter what, their corrections would be met with hostility.

Again, the facts do not support this, and if the audience hated it so much, as keeps being asserted, then why did the Borg come back again and again?

The Borg they liked, the 8472 not so much. Which is why they made only 1 more appearance before the writers realized no one liked them and they had to get rid of them.[/QUOTE]

Alright, let's try a different tack here.

First of all, VOY had it the same as DS9 and TNG, with DS9 set to take TNG's slot and VOY to take DS9's slot once TNG was off the air. Then things changed so that VOY became the flagship show for UPN, resulting in more scrutiny. This is still workable, if creative staff is a willing to work around problems. The creative staff did not always show a willingness to address problems beyond superficial fixes.

VOY's ensemble could have gone either way, if the chemistry had been there. DS9 struggled with its ensemble in the first couple of seasons. I honestly didn't watch DS9 when it was on the air until much later because of Odo and his interactions with the crew.

As I have said before, character interaction and chemistry is important. Regardless of the show, SG-1, DW, or Trek, characters are what drive the show and give audience interest, for the most part. If SG-1 and DW had any advantage, it was characters who had chemistry. VOY's characters never seemed to capture that in a consistent way.

Again, VOY offered to be something different, but is consistently not new. It refused to change in any meaningful way or provide any sort of characters that mattered. Despite the insistence, the evidence is not there that the audience sat there, pitchfork in one hand and torch in the other. Unless I am missing something, the idea that Trek fans were wanting to hate VOY is hyperbole.

The unfortunate aspect of VOY is that is was a TNG knock-off. It never treated itself any differently than TNG, it adopted the formula and did not change it. That formula would not save VOY because audience's tastes were shifting. And, given the selection of science fiction shows available on the market, VOY's lack of change seems to have worked against it.

Finally,I have read quotes from Berma, Braga, Piller and Taylor regarding some aspect or another about the failures of VOY. Berman, in particular, has been rather frank that it was too soon, and that he would have made different decisions. Likewise, Piller had expressed his own limits and frustrations in the writing process.

DS9 was long considered a black sheep of the family, but managed to work past that fact, by crafting new foes to work against, and building up previously established material. But, they were working with a new quadrant too. The difference is taking advantage of the challenges, and coming up with new material. VOY just didn't seem to make good use of what it had.

Ok, that's enough of a wall of text

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Nobody went into Voyager wanting to hate it. As of the end of Caretaker's original airing I was in love with the show. For the first few seasons I wasn't talking to anybody about the show and by season three I was running out of enthusiasm all on my own.

And the reason you hear more criticism about Voyager than Enterprise isn't that people hated Voyager more. More people watched it, and they did so with higher expectations. People bash Voyager, they didn't watch Enterprise. And among nerdy types, bashing is really double edged praise. Nerds don't truly dislike a show until they just stop watching it.

Whether the cause of Voyager's problems was the writers, the producers, or the networks, it doesn't change the issues with the final product that was delivered. I suppose you could say their only crime was failure to reproduce magic for a fourth time, but they just didn't hold most people's interest week to week and the most obvious reason is their unwillingness to take storytelling risks.

 

[Anwar]

Then things changed so that VOY became the flagship show for UPN, resulting in more scrutiny. This is still workable, if creative staff is a willing to work around problems. The creative staff did not always show a willingness to address problems beyond superficial fixes.

Well, like I said compared to the years DS9 got in development VOY was pretty rushed. If they had more time like Berman wanted they'd have thought up more plotlines than "Lost in Space Redux".

VOY's ensemble could have gone either way, if the chemistry had been there.

A smaller, tighter cast and more time to make sure they have chemistry would've helped.

VOY's characters never seemed to capture that in a consistent way.

Agree.

Unless I am missing something, the idea that Trek fans were wanting to hate VOY is hyperbole.

Even Ent got a less hostile welcome.

The unfortunate aspect of VOY is that is was a TNG knock-off. It never treated itself any differently than TNG, it adopted the formula and did not change it. That formula would not save VOY because audience's tastes were shifting. And, given the selection of science fiction shows available on the market, VOY's lack of change seems to have worked against it.

Which further supports they should've waited. That way, Paramount would've seen those other shows (LEXX, Farscape) and been more willing to copy them and thus let VOY be more than a TNG knock-off.

Berman, in particular, has been rather frank that it was too soon, and that he would have made different decisions. Likewise, Piller had expressed his own limits and frustrations in the writing process.

And I agree.

The difference is taking advantage of the challenges, and coming up with new material. VOY just didn't seem to make good use of what it had.

The other constraints (no support, no allies, no staying in one place, etc) didn't help.

 

[MacLeod]

Perhaps part of the reason as to why ENT got a less hostile welcome is because expectations were lower for it than VOY. VOY came after TNG which was generally well recieved by fans and critics, and was competeting against DSN which I think was also getting some favourable criticial reviews.

 

[Melakon]

I sometimes think too much attention is being paid to what fans want from a show anyway, especially in the days of the internet. People don't seem to be content with just letting a show develop as its producers intend, and either demand to be heard or threaten a boycott if something isn't done that they want. If I were producing a show, I'd want to make the show I want to make, not the show my audience wants me to make.

 

[BillJ]

Probably. The idea is to work around limits not complain about them.

VOY had it a lot harder than any of its predecessors in this regard.

Which is non-sense, of course. TOS had NBC censors going over every script with a fine-toothed comb. Like it or not, every series has had people looking over their shoulders and telling them what they can and can't do.

For all the freedom Roddenberry claimed to have on TNG, it ended up being far more conservative than TOS. The entirety of Modern Trek is more conservative than TOS.

 

[Anwar]

TOS only had three main characters (and that's on a good day, most of the time it was just Spock and Kirk) and only lasted three seasons. They didn't enough have a big enough cast to fall into soap opera style stuff to get everyone involved and they didn't have enough time to run out of ideas, become stale formula-wise, rehash plots, outstay its welcome, etc.

So yeah, TOS didn't have it as bad. By TNG Trek was a "media sensation" so it got the combing even worse. TOS wasn't as noticed and thus didn't have to worry about as much and wouldn't get into as much trouble if they tried to push the envelope.

Course, it also means Modern Trek has to put with throwbacks who blather on about how all of Modern Trek is nothing but "bastard step-children" and how modern society is worse then 60s society in every way, etc. (Not saying you are, but still...)

 

[fireproof78]

Nobody went into Voyager wanting to hate it. As of the end of Caretaker's original airing I was in love with the show. For the first few seasons I wasn't talking to anybody about the show and by season three I was running out of enthusiasm all on my own.

And the reason you hear more criticism about Voyager than Enterprise isn't that people hated Voyager more. More people watched it, and they did so with higher expectations. People bash Voyager, they didn't watch Enterprise. And among nerdy types, bashing is really double edged praise. Nerds don't truly dislike a show until they just stop watching it.

Whether the cause of Voyager's problems was the writers, the producers, or the networks, it doesn't change the issues with the final product that was delivered. I suppose you could say their only crime was failure to reproduce magic for a fourth time, but they just didn't hold most people's interest week to week and the most obvious reason is their unwillingness to take storytelling risks.

My view is that the problem was multifaceted, and one we will never have the full details on, as production companies do not like bad stories circling about, and most people won't tell because they want to work again. Ridiculous, I know

But I agree that no one started out with any animosity towards VOY, given the (then) current success of TNG and DS9 on the rise, as well as feature films. VOY just offered something different but couldn't deliver.

Then things changed so that VOY became the flagship show for UPN, resulting in more scrutiny. This is still workable, if creative staff is a willing to work around problems. The creative staff did not always show a willingness to address problems beyond superficial fixes.

Well, like I said compared to the years DS9 got in development VOY was pretty rushed. If they had more time like Berman wanted they'd have thought up more plotlines than "Lost in Space Redux".

VOY's ensemble could have gone either way, if the chemistry had been there.

A smaller, tighter cast and more time to make sure they have chemistry would've helped.



Agree.



Even Ent got a less hostile welcome.



Which further supports they should've waited. That way, Paramount would've seen those other shows (LEXX, Farscape) and been more willing to copy them and thus let VOY be more than a TNG knock-off.

Berman, in particular, has been rather frank that it was too soon, and that he would have made different decisions. Likewise, Piller had expressed his own limits and frustrations in the writing process.

And I agree.

The difference is taking advantage of the challenges, and coming up with new material. VOY just didn't seem to make good use of what it had.

The other constraints (no support, no allies, no staying in one place, etc) didn't help.

Constraints never help in any endeavor. The goal of a TV show's staff is to overcome obstacles. If you constrain your premise, then you must come up with creative solutions to overcome those problems. Especially if they are self-imposed constraints on your premise.

I get that Berman and team wanted more time to produce and set it all up. I often want more time at work as well to complete projects. But, the job is still to produce a quality product or service. To surrender to obstacles doesn't give an excuse.

I also don't see how the fan base is horribly anti-VOY. Like Jiri said, is that more people watched it, the expectations were higher, and the premise was sold as different. VOY and DS9 had an advantage of a build in fan base from TNG, which means that more people were interested in Trek at the time. So, there might be a more vocal opposition, but that's due to an increase viewing audience, as Jiri noted, again.

Probably. The idea is to work around limits not complain about them.

VOY had it a lot harder than any of its predecessors in this regard.

Which is non-sense, of course. TOS had NBC censors going over every script with a fine-toothed comb. Like it or not, every series has had people looking over their shoulders and telling them what they can and can't do.

For all the freedom Roddenberry claimed to have on TNG, it ended up being far more conservative than TOS. The entirety of Modern Trek is more conservative than TOS.

Indeed. All the BTS information I have read for multiple shows indicates that TOS walked a razor's edge of survivability, with reviews and rewrites being constant. Nimoy lived the most conservative life because he didn't know if the next show was coming. Roddenberry was crafting new pilots to sell in case Trek was cancelled, as well as marketing product lines, like the IDIC symbol, to make more money.

Modern Trek, until Abrams, played it remarkably safe, aside from the occasional controversial episode, or attempt at controversy. DS9 was the more unique, with the war plot, though even TNG had the Klingon Civil War.

The problem with VOY is that it was just symptomatic of modern Trek for its formulaic way. VOY just happened to continue it on when it was becoming clear that the formula would no longer work. Also, VOY lacked the characters that TNG and DS9 had that could get people through some of the more problematic episodes.

Every Trek has its ups and downs.

 

[BillJ]

So yeah, TOS didn't have it as bad. By TNG Trek was a "media sensation" so it got the combing even worse. TOS wasn't as noticed and thus didn't have to worry about as much and wouldn't get into as much trouble if they tried to push the envelope.

So we're placing the blame of the failure* of Voyager on the success of The Next Generation? Seems like we should be placing the failure of the series on the writers and producers who failed to give us a more compelling series, even with the obstacles in their way. But, they simply weren't up to the challenge.

*Voyager isn't my favorite Trek, but I think it did enough right to be entertaining most of the time.

 

[Anwar]

Well, at that point (VOY's premiere) Trek was a cash cow. Typical corporate reaction to a cash cow is never EVER deviate from what worked before and make sure to squeeze every drop of milk out.

A better technique would be to treat the cow gently, let it do it's own thing as long as it doesn't hurt itself (as in, go directly against what Trek is) and offer it good grass to eat and a little nookie on the side.

That would mean less money in the immediate time, but an ultimately longer-lasting and healthier cow.

TOS' original run wasn't a cash cow, so it didn't have to deal with that.

 

[BillJ]

Well, at that point (VOY's premiere) Trek was a cash cow. Typical corporate reaction to a cash cow is never EVER deviate from what worked before and make sure to squeeze every drop of milk out.

A better technique would be to treat the cow gently, let it do it's own thing as long as it doesn't hurt itself (as in, go directly against what Trek is) and offer it good grass to eat and a little nookie on the side.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else not associated with the network or series thinks about how they handle the overall franchise. People were hired to create and write a series. Their job was to make Voyager viable regardless of restrictions. They were hired to produce and write a compelling episodic series set on the opposite side of the galaxy. A show that people would want to watch.

Well, at that point (VOY's premiere) Trek was a cash cow.

You don't think there were many advantages to this as well? They didn't have to do what TNG did and hire starving actors. They were able to build great sets and have spectacular special effects that would not be available if they were making Space Patrol.

 

[Anwar]

I think they succeeded, it's just that the audience was more interested in a big stupid 200 part story with no breather episodes or breaks or storylines that actually ended so they could do other stuff.

Mainly ignoring that every other TV show that ever attempted that always usually ended after 3 seasons or so because that's all that kind of storytelling is good for before it burns itself out.

They didn't have to do what TNG did and hire starving actors.

Like I said, compared to TNG and DS9 Voyager was pretty rushed into production. Heck, one reason they kept doing Holodeck stories was to reuse lots of leftover Period Piece sets from TNG. Sure, they could make some new sets and had time to make a new ship but lacked the time needed to realize their plot was unsustainable. UPN interference to make TNG 2.0 didn't help.

 

[MacLeod]

DSN was a deviation from went before, true it had fewer viewers than TNG, but a return to TNG's formula is what the studio thought would increase viewers why did viewership continue to decline.

Treu there are many factors competion

 

[BillJ]

Sure, they could make some new sets and had time to make a new ship but lacked the time needed to realize their plot was unsustainable.

I still don't buy this. You said yourself you liked the show, I (and many others) have said they enjoyed the show. If the point is to entertain viewers, then obviously the plot was sustainable.

 

[MacLeod]

I think they succeeded, it's just that the audience was more interested in a big stupid 200 part story with no breather episodes or breaks or storylines that actually ended so they could do other stuff.

Whilst some might have wanted that, I suspect far more just wanted things to have consequences. I.e you loose a shuttle it's no hardship but lose 2 or 3 then you start to have issues as they become more valuable.

The 38 torpedeos which they had no way of replacing could have become an issue, so do you use a few up now or try and save them for later. What happens when you are down to your last few? Not saying you can't get more but at least drop a line into an episode about it.

Keeping track of how many crew you have and how many have been lost.

All of those things could easily have been done, without really impacting on the episodic format.

 

[Hypaspist]

^ Agreed. It isn't like I want a space version of Oregon Trail, it's that they ignore something that you really just can't ignore. It stretches plausibility too much, it dissolves tension, and it indicates a certain lack of creativity.
Saying that it's Sci Fi anyway and doesn't matter is pretty much to tell us to F off as fans. If nothing is ever at stake and nothing is worth being concerned about on the ship, why should I care that they're far from home in the first place? It forces the show to rely on Star Trek tropes instead of actually coming up with unique challenges.

I sometimes think too much attention is being paid to what fans want from a show anyway, especially in the days of the internet. People don't seem to be content with just letting a show develop as its producers intend, and either demand to be heard or threaten a boycott if something isn't done that they want. If I were producing a show, I'd want to make the show I want to make, not the show my audience wants me to make.

I agree with that. I think Voyager's biggest failing is that it tried to play it safe. It's almost like the writers were directed to return to what worked in the past instead of being allowed to really branch out.

 

[Anwar]

I still don't buy this. You said yourself you liked the show, I (and many others) have said they enjoyed the show. If the point is to entertain viewers, then obviously the plot was sustainable.

The plot (TNG 2.0) they ultimately went with got them viewership, the original "Lost Ship" plotline (which they get critiqued for abandoning) wasn't sustainable.

Let's look at ever "Lost Ship" show from the last 40 years worth remembering:

Blakes Seven: Had more to it than the "Lost Ship" thing from day one, never had to deal with Repair issues or resupply, had a small cast.

Each season only had 13 episodes or so, which made the serialization easier. Show intended to end after 3 seasons, got one extra and still ended after 4.

LEXX: Only had 4 or so characters. Ship didn't need resupply or external aid, show ended after 4 seasons. Only had about 60 episodes. They dropped the "Lost Ship" thing after the 2nd season and spent the 3rd season in Heaven and Hell with the 4th season on Earth.

Farscape: Only had 5 or so characters at a time. Ship rarely if ever needed external aid or resupply. The dropped the "Lost Ship" thing at the end of Season 1 and had the rest of it be about the Peacekeeper/Scarran war and the search for Wormhole weapons. Barely made it to 4 seasons.

NuBSG: Had an entire armada, not one ship. Lots of spare cannon fodder to kill off without harming Galactica. Whenever things got bad they pulled a solution out of Deus Ex Machina (spare Battlestar, Renegade Cylons, "God"). Show fell apart after 2 seasons, rot set in by 3rd, show ended on literal Deus Ex Machina in 4th.

None made it past 4 seasons, and each one dropped the "Lost Ship" thing or had more to it from the start.

 

[BillJ]

None made it past 4 seasons, and each one dropped the "Lost Ship" thing or had more to it from the start.

But Voyager made it for seven seasons. For whatever reason, the formula worked well enough that UPN kept it on the air and didn't slash its budget. It worked well enough that many people hung with the show until "Endgame" came and went.

Seriously, if UPN just cared about it being TNG 2.0 they could've ordered the producers to bring the ship home to fight some of the Dominion War or have weekly spats with the Klingons and Romulans.

So nothing you've posted proves that a "Lost Ship" series can't make it, because Star Trek: Voyager did make it. There's 178 episodes of making it out there.

 

[Melakon]

One thing that hurt the ratings for Voyager and Enterprise was UPN wasn't in every city that had the big 3 of ABC, CBS, and NBC, or even in small cities with just one or two majors. Not everyone was seeing the shows.