Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?

[AuntKate]

That is a Vulcan talking. What is irrational to a Vulcan may seem like the best solution to a Human, and, anyway, I think Janeway was doing some "parsing" here. She said she would let them destroy the ship. Remember that they had already decided in Part 1 that Equinox was not going to be repaired, so it was already a loss as far as Janeway is concerned. What she doesn't say here is that she intends to beam the remaining crew to safety. In fact, that is exactly what she tried to do when the ship was in its death throes.

 

[Praxius]

There were times when Janeway listened to Chakotay ("Basics" is one example) and there were times when Kirk or Picard did not listen to Spock or Riker. So what's your point?

There were times of course.... but in comparison, Chakotay had what?

One?

Two moments where he actually changed her mind in the span of 7 years?

Spock and Kirk regularly bounced ideas off of one or another and Kirk heeded much of Spock's reasoning and suggestions.

Riker and Picard would sit down and give each other their opinions about the situation at hand, get philosophical about it.... toss each other their ideas, ask questions and then formulate a plan.

Sisko..... well.... everybody on DS9 bent the rules plenty.... but while Sisko usually had the plan and had everything setup for how it was going to be, Kira had no issues voicing her opinion and getting into Sisko's face, especially when it was an issue concerning Bajor or the Cardassians, etc...... and while on occasion someone would go behind his back or disobey his orders (Bashir, O'Brien, Worf) he'd chew their ass out and lecture them back to the stone ages.... but then in the end, he'd defend them and they'd more often then not, face no serious punishment except disappointing him.

Meanwhile, Janeway would throw you in the brig if you were out of line, strip you of your rank, confine you to quarters.... she had everybody by their ballz on that ship. Granted she had her understanding moments, but in the end, she'd still punish you without any bend and the only time she didn't was with the Doctor because she didn't know how to properly punish him in the first place.

If Seven voiced her opinion or if she didn't comply with something she was ordered to because she felt it was conflicting..... and even when she pointed out Janeway's hypocrisy straight to her face, she'd still punish her someway..... like confining her to the Cargo Bay...... and when she knew she was caught in a string of hypocrisy and her flaws thrown into her face, she'd turn with a scowl and say "As you were." ~ Thus ending the debate and as I saw it, she'd never see the point being made and just continue doing what she was doing.

Don't get me wrong... I don't hate her guts and the character herself was good, whom I wouldn't mind spending a few hours chatting with over coffee..... but as a captain compared to all the other Captains?

She beats out Archer, but I'd rather be under the command of Picard or Sisko before her.

 

[AuntKate]

I don't know much about DS9, so what you say about Kira confronting Sisko more than the first officers confronted the captains might be true.

However, you are being a bit tough on Janeway. Two of those things you discuss, being thrown in the brig and stripped of rank, happened only once and to the same person--Tom Paris. Tom had blatantly refused to follow a direct order. I don't think she was out of line in putting him in the brig or stripping him of rank. Restricting Chakotay to quarters was out of line, but she did nothing more than that to him.

If anything, Janeway was too lenient on her crew. As you pointed out, she was too easy on the EMH when he sided with the holodeck characters. But, there were other times when she was forgiving of the crew when she might have come down harder on them. I don't have time for research, so let me think of a few.

There was the time that Seven woke up the Vaduaar (against away team rules) and got them into a terrible mess in "Dragon's Teeth." There was the time that Chakotay took off on his own to deal with the Kazon. There was the time Kim got involved with an alien woman and nearly got Voyager into a conflict (she let him suffer through his "withdrawal" as punishment"). There was the mini-mutiny when Tuvok, B'Elanna, Seska, and other traded for the device they thought would transport Voyager home--just a well-deserved chewing out. There was the time Neelix traded plasma for a map because he didn't know what was facing the ship and nearly caused another serious incident. I could go on and on.

So, I don't know. I think maybe you are forgetting how forgiving she could be. I don't agree that she had them by the . . . . whatever . . . because, in my mind, she was a pretty nice captain to work for.

 

[exodus]

I don't know much about DS9, so what you say about Kira confronting Sisko more than the first officers confronted the captains might be true.

However, you are being a bit tough on Janeway. Two of those things you discuss, being thrown in the brig and stripped of rank, happened only once and to the same person--Tom Paris. Tom had blatantly refused to follow a direct order. I don't think she was out of line in putting him in the brig or stripping him of rank. Restricting Chakotay to quarters was out of line, but she did nothing more than that to him.

If anything, Janeway was too lenient on her crew. As you pointed out, she was too easy on the EMH when he sided with the holodeck characters. But, there were other times when she was forgiving of the crew when she might have come down harder on them. I don't have time for research, so let me think of a few.

There was the time that Seven woke up the Vaduaar (against away team rules) and got them into a terrible mess in "Dragon's Teeth." There was the time that Chakotay took off on his own to deal with the Kazon. There was the time Kim got involved with an alien woman and nearly got Voyager into a conflict (she let him suffer through his "withdrawal" as punishment"). There was the mini-mutiny when Tuvok, B'Elanna, Seska, and other traded for the device they thought would transport Voyager home--just a well-deserved chewing out. There was the time Neelix traded plasma for a map because he didn't know what was facing the ship and nearly caused another serious incident. I could go on and on.

So, I don't know. I think maybe you are forgetting how forgiving she could be. I don't agree that she had them by the . . . . whatever . . . because, in my mind, she was a pretty nice captain to work for.

Exactly.
Also, she didn't punish the Doc. because she didn't know how too. She didn't punish him because as you pointed out, she had given everyone else a free pass at one point or another, that was the EMH's.

 

[zar]

I've been dealing with anti-VOY complainers for 15 years. I understand the complaints quite well.

No you don't, shown by how you constantly resort to exaggeration, hyperbole and putting words in other people's mouths in an attempt to defend aspects of Voyager.

It's not my fault if the basic argument against VOY always comes down to "I wanted to see every last little moment of every single repair/resupply action and I wanted every single character on the show, including the 50 million recurring characters I also wanted, to ruminate on every single last little thing that happens to them." As well as "I wanted the Borg to be utterly invincible, unable to be defeated and unable to escape from" which would have ended the show in a nanosecond.

The entire post above was nothing but exaggeration, hyperbole and putting words in other people's mouths. It's amazing how well and how promptly you proved You_Will_Fail correct.

-It had a flawed premise to begin with. Like LOST IN SPACE and GILLIGAN'S ISLAND, you knew they were never really going to get home, because if they did, the show would be over.

If the premise was flawed (I don't think it was, it was just badly executed), then this wasn't the reason for it. The fact that you know they won't get home doesn't hurt the story any more than the fact that you know most of the main characters in every other show won't die because the actors' contracts aren't up yet...

And Hell, Farscape also got away with not explaining a lot of the same stuff VOY gets criticized for as well. It's complete double standard.

I never watched Farscape, but I think you're missing the point. I for one don't particularly care about the fact that Voyager's constant repairs, resupplies, etc., were unexplained; the problem is that it happened in the first place.

You see, with the ship perpetually in pristine condition, the crew chilling out in holodecks and in relatively high spirits all the time, Tom building his very own shuttle in just a few days, and Voyager portrayed as solely being the military equivalent of the entirety of Starfleet... I found it hard to accept the supposed need or desire to return to Federation space. It just didn't feel disconnected from the Alpha Quadrant shows like the creators originally intended.

You may not agree, Anwar, but that doesn't make the argument invalid.

 

[teya]

In defense of KimC, I have to say that the reasons given now for Voyager's mediocrity make sense in retrospect, but they don't hold water for the attitude that was expressed at the time the show first aired. How did anyone know in 1995 whether the show would live up to its potential or produce as many good programs as the previous Star Trek series did?

Thing is, since everyone settled down to being on a Starfleet ship by the end of the pilot, it didn't take all that long to see that Voyager wasn't living up to its potential.


And that had nothing to do with whether or not a woman was in charge.

 

[AuntKate]

Voyager definitely didn't live up to its premise and failed to provide explanations for many events, such as the endless supply of torpedoes and shuttles. I blame the producers for that. There should have been a big sign on the wall that listed how many torpedoes and shuttles remained and then held the writers to it. Same thing for character development and consistency and for tying up loose ends (like the Borg baby). It was poor management to let the basic story arc disappear.

However, the Voyager fans don't care. We like the crew and the series in spite of its flaws, and some of us even refuse to admit there is anything wrong with it whatsoever (sort of a counterbalance to those who can't see anything but the flaws). In spite of its shortcomings, Voyager has some really excellent Star Trek stories to offer.

 

[TheGodBen]

That is a Vulcan talking. What is irrational to a Vulcan may seem like the best solution to a Human.

But Chakotay also thought she was acting irrationally, and he's a human. Or a plank of wood, I was never quite sure which, but he was one of the two.

However, you are being a bit tough on Janeway.

I agree, Janeway wasn't overly tough on the crew and often went rather easy on them. You could make a case that Picard was too tough because of the way he treated Ensign Sito, but that doesn't mean he acted that way all the time.

 

[Anwar]

The entire post above was nothing but exaggeration, hyperbole and putting words in other people's mouths. It's amazing how well and how promptly you proved You_Will_Fail correct.

Oh, bull****. He wanted to see constant repairs/resupplying, the characters being weaklings who let every last thing get to them, and for there to be recurring characters coming out of the sets arses just for the sake of being there. There's no exaggeration to any of that.

If the premise was flawed (I don't think it was, it was just badly executed), then this wasn't the reason for it. The fact that you know they won't get home doesn't hurt the story any more than the fact that you know most of the main characters in every other show won't die because the actors' contracts aren't up yet...

It's not just that, always being on the move also means they'll never stick around long enough to flesh out their unique aliens or provide real stories to any of them. It would be like if the Dominion only showed up twice in all of DS9.

I never watched Farscape, but I think you're missing the point. I for one don't particularly care about the fact that Voyager's constant repairs, resupplies, etc., were unexplained; the problem is that it happened in the first place.

Well, too bad. That others shows got away with not explaining stuff just shows that VOY was subject to an unfair double standard.

I found it hard to accept the supposed need or desire to return to Federation space. It just didn't feel disconnected from the Alpha Quadrant shows like the creators originally intended.

I never liked those "long journey home" type stories so I won't really counter this. VOY would've been better suited if they were simply trapped in one area of an unknown region of space, they didn't know where they were, and the show was spent in this one large region of space so it and its aliens would be series regulars that would be explored better.

 

[Captain Frank]

Wow.
Six pages to this thread. It will take days to
read all the posts.

I like "Voyager".
I enjoy watching it again.

I would love to have all the episodes un-cut, on DVD
(Blue Ray, whatever).

Someone wrote they didn't feel the characters' desire
to return home because they had everything they need.

I live in Tucson, Arizona.
Suppose I find myself on a yacht in the Indian Ocean.
It is equipped with food, fuel, sails, a shower, a bed,
a computer with Internet abilities, some books, video games. Everything I need. Would I desperately want
to go home? Yes! I would set sail east, visit the South
Pacific along the way, and get home.

Just because the "Voyager" crew had what they needed,
doesn't mean there shouldn't have been a desire to see home again.

 

[RyuRoots]

The entire post above was nothing but exaggeration, hyperbole and putting words in other people's mouths. It's amazing how well and how promptly you proved You_Will_Fail correct.

Oh, bull****. He wanted to see constant repairs/resupplying, the characters being weaklings who let every last thing get to them, and for there to be recurring characters coming out of the sets arses just for the sake of being there. There's no exaggeration to any of that.

Prove it. Quote where he said he wanted nothing but those extremes.

 

[vas2009]

I knew your point. You ASKED ME "What's your point?" I explained. No need for a tude.
You said she threatened him with the brig so he backed down. I told you that she said she had a plan and he must have trusted her.
Tuvok has known Janeway alot longer, if that even means anything to you. This whole set of scentences was just to back up the false info you had given.

Apologies, I misread your post.

However, I still take issue with your interpretation of events, they don't match up with what happens onscreen. Be aware, every time I reference a point or event in this thread, I search for the scene on YouTube and base my opinion on that. This is what happened in that scene:

Also I have never called anyone a sexist.

No, but that was the original charge, that people treat Janeway different from Archer even though they both committed torture. I reject that gender has anything to do with it, and to support that I will reference the scene where Roslin airlocks a Cylon, or assists in interrogating Baltar while he's under the influence of a fear-inducing drug. I don't have reservations about either of those even though she is a woman.

You are correct. A pleasure to be given fact, thank you. I could have swarn she told him she had an idea.
It was actually my own interpitation of what was said and the actions of Janeway. By her saying she knew what she was doing told me that she had some sort of a plan. Tuvok reminded her that she is being irrational and then she put him in his place

This again is one of those things that can be left to the viewer for interpitation. Don't forget she is still a Captain and a member of her crew was on that ship.

I suppose it has a lot to do with how you view the character if you expect her to be vicious or irrational ect you might interpit or look deeper into the situation and visa versa.

I don't see her as cruel or a killer, as some do, therefore I had faith that Cpt. Janeway would not sacrafice lives as it has been suggested.

 

[Greg Cox]

To my mind, there was nothing inherently wrong with VOYAGER that a healthy dose of caffeine wouldn't have cured. The premise was fine, the characters were appealing, and it had the best two-hour pilot of all the latter-day TREK shows. Also, the best music and credit sequence. It was just a little slow and stodgy compared to the competition back then.

I remember turning to my girlfriend at one point, during a particularly talky episode, and complaining, "You know, XENA would have slaughtered an entire army by now . . . ."

Still, I wouldn't mind writing another VOYAGER book someday. I never did get a chance to write Seven of Nine.

 

[Anwar]

The entire post above was nothing but exaggeration, hyperbole and putting words in other people's mouths. It's amazing how well and how promptly you proved You_Will_Fail correct.

Oh, bull****. He wanted to see constant repairs/resupplying, the characters being weaklings who let every last thing get to them, and for there to be recurring characters coming out of the sets arses just for the sake of being there. There's no exaggeration to any of that.

Prove it. Quote where he said he wanted nothing but those extremes.

Didn't you read that list You_Will_Fail gave a few pages back?

 

[stj]

No offense meant friend, but I just can't take anything you say seriously after this, since BSG was a dramatic success, a critical success, and a financial success. And it totally ruled.

No offense meant friend, but I just can't take seriously anyone who genuinely thinks BSG was a dramatic success. (And its financial success was limited too, or it would have gone at least the fifth season that the producers wanted guaranteed.) BSG was a critical success, which inspires contempt for the critics.

In the context of a Voyager discussion, the fact that BSG, despite intending to avoid Voyager's waste, ending up doing the same damn things you people claim you can't abide, still beating the same dead horse gets offensive. You still don't have any glue, nothing sticks.

I have no trouble discussing BSG, I think that was a great show and what let it down was its focus on the mythology that RDM had no plan for. I otherwise admire the character and political drama and the fact that it showed the hardship endured by the survivors in the fleet. The reason why I didn't bother responding to you isn't because I'm embarrassed by BSG, far from it, it's because you were so obviously baiting BSG fans and expressing your own opinions as facts that there didn't seem to be a point in engaging you. I shall, however, engage someone far more reasonable on the subject.

And I had thought the reason you didn't respond was because you weren't Greg Cox. The italicized portion of your post is exactly why BSG is relevant to the nonsense about the unfulfilled potential. Plus other things, such as Seven and Ransom in Equinox being the origin of Head Six and Baltar. Obviously, at some level you know perfectly well I'm not "obviously" baiting BSG fans.

There's a strong case that anyone blithering at Voyager fans after the anti-Voyager crashed and burned is baiting fans. Refusing to compare the dramatic value of the alleged potential as revealed in BSG makes a flawed argument. Smugly advancing exploded arguments is rather rude, actually. The unwarranted assumption that BSG is good is supposed to be an unquestioned fact, but if BSG fans can talk that way, so can I. Also, you neither have telepathic powers to find my alleged true motive, nor do we have reason to think you'd be honest about it if somehow you did.

Thing is, since everyone settled down to being on a Starfleet ship by the end of the pilot, it didn't take all that long to see that Voyager wasn't living up to its potential.


And that had nothing to do with whether or not a woman was in charge.

Since the glorious example of BSG taught us in the very first season finale that mutiny against the woman leader was a dramatic inevitability, you're just plain wrong.

Frankly, the assumption in the miniseries that naturally a general would merely condescend to tolerate a civilian leader is kind of bizarre, and depends upon the relative sexes of the characters to seem reasonable. If Adama had been a military thug, no, but this way? Again, you're just plain wrong.

The assumption that the Maquis should have some pointless conflict for dramatic interest was disproven by the boredom of the pointless conflict on BSG (even the fans have trouble pretending the Quadrangle of Doom is good.) Or those stupid pilots worried about their careers when civilization is on the skids!The Maquis' main function was to provide a bunch of main cast member who wouldn't be too sorry to take a long time to get back to jail. If the bloody rebels could enlist in the Union army and serve out west against the Indians, the bloody Maquis could joint Starfleet 70 000 light years from their war!

 

[RyuRoots]

Oh, bull****. He wanted to see constant repairs/resupplying, the characters being weaklings who let every last thing get to them, and for there to be recurring characters coming out of the sets arses just for the sake of being there. There's no exaggeration to any of that.

Prove it. Quote where he said he wanted nothing but those extremes.

Didn't you read that list You_Will_Fail gave a few pages back?

As a matter of fact, I did, and everything in it seems reasonable to me.

That doesn't answer my request. I would like you, specifically, to show what, exactly and in no uncertain terms, proves that You_Will_Fail undeniably and indisputably wanted, and I quote again, "to see constant repairs/resupplying, the characters being weaklings who let every last thing get to them, and for there to be recurring characters coming out of the sets arses just for the sake of being there."

 

[TheGodBen]

I, for one, don't think sets even have arses.

I suppose it has a lot to do with how you view the character if you expect her to be vicious or irrational ect you might interpit or look deeper into the situation and visa versa.

I don't see her as cruel or a killer, as some do, therefore I had faith that Cpt. Janeway would not sacrafice lives as it has been suggested.

I don't see her as a cruel murderer either, although I must admit that I find some of the jokes that sfdebris makes in his video reviews to be quite amusing. I know people like to point to her actions in Tuvix, and while I have my issues with that episode, I don't think Janeway was cold-blooded in what she did, she walked out of sickbay looking like she was going to throw up.

I think she came across as erratic on occasions, but I prefer to see that as a problem with the writers rather than a problem with Janeway as a character, it's particularly a problem during Braga's tenure. Jeri Taylor did some things that I disagree with, but she did seem to have a handle on the Janeway character and kept her reasonably consistent throughout the first four seasons. From season 5 on, she could go all over the place.

There's a strong case that anyone blithering at Voyager fans after the anti-Voyager crashed and burned is baiting fans. Refusing to compare the dramatic value of the alleged potential as revealed in BSG makes a flawed argument.

I think that BSG was a great, yet flawed, show. Lots of people feel that way. To claim that the show failed is absurd, it no more failed than Voyager failed, and Voyager didn't fail. There are things that I don't like about Voyager, but I'm not stupid enough to think that if I don't like a show then it must have failed. Voyager was trying to be something different than I wanted it to be, but it had plenty of fans that enjoyed it on its own terms. BSG may have been something different than you wanted it to be, but it had plenty of fans that enjoyed it on its own terms.

To come into this thread with the blanket statement that "BSG failed" warns me that you're not the sort of person that's open to reasonable debate. That should not be misconstrued as me not being open to debating the relative merits of BSG and Voyager, I just don't wish to waste my time attempting to debate it with someone that appears to be approaching the situation from a standpoint that I consider to be flawed.

 

[zar]

There's no exaggeration to any of that.

Yes, there is plenty. I will underline all of your exaggerations:


'It's not my fault if the basic argument against VOY always comes down to "I wanted to see every last little moment of every single repair/resupply action and I wanted every single character on the show, including the 50 million recurring characters I also wanted, to ruminate on every single last little thing that happens to them." As well as "I wanted the Borg to be utterly invincible, unable to be defeated and unable to escape from" which would have ended the show in a nanosecond.'

'He wanted to see constant repairs/resupplying, the characters being weaklings who let every last thing get to them, and for there to be recurring characters coming out of the sets arses just for the sake of being there.'

I never watched Farscape, but I think you're missing the point. I for one don't particularly care about the fact that Voyager's constant repairs, resupplies, etc., were unexplained; the problem is that it happened in the first place.

Well, too bad. That others shows got away with not explaining stuff just shows that VOY was subject to an unfair double standard.

I have to ask: Did you even read what you just replied to? I said the mere fact that it's unexplained isn't the problem, and you just repeated your drivel about "double standards" as if I'd never said anything.

Moreover, the fact that I have never seen Farscape makes it impossible for my opinion to be a double standard, since, naturally, I have no opinion of Farscape. But I guess you'd rather ignore my argument and group me along with those whose opinions you believe have a weakspot that you can focus on.

 

[exodus]

Voyager definitely didn't live up to its premise and failed to provide explanations for many events, such as the endless supply of torpedoes and shuttles. I blame the producers for that. There should have been a big sign on the wall that listed how many torpedoes and shuttles remained and then held the writers to it.

I guess they felt that after we watched 7 years of TNG & some DS9, they figured they didn't need too. Isn't it a stereotype of Trek fans that we know the technology of the show better than those on it do? It was one of the on going jokes in "Galaxy Quest". They even made a joke on DS9 about how Starfleet Engineers can "turn rocks into replicators." They were basically telling us to stop questioning the shit that doesn't matter, it's just part of the fictional aspect of the show. The writers didn't fail that aspect of the show because they already told us such things weren't a priority.

Trek has never been up front with how it's technology works and has many times fudged it's science for the sake of fictional story telling and we've never carried. Why does Voyager need to answer all the questions we've glossed over for years? The show itself isn't going to change knowing how a shuttle is built. Janeway, the crew and all the events that happened will still remain the same.

 

[zar]

The writers didn't fail that aspect of the show because they already told us such things weren't a priority.

They did fail because they told us early on exactly how many torpedoes they had and that they had no way to replace them. Everyone had "replicator rations" and was cautious with their resources in season 1. They were telling us that this time it is a priority because Voyager's deficiency was meant to be an important part of the premise.