Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?

[AuntKate]

AuntKate, it's not that you don't make some good points, but look at this thread: Did ANYBODY bring up the gender issue before KimC brought it up? No, and I don't think Janeway as a character was even brought up, just general criticisms of the show. So what's the motivation of basically accusing people who criticize Voyager of being sexists? Also, if these attitudes are "below the surface," they're kind of hard to prove, which just leads to a witch hunt attitude in looking for sexism. After all, if you don't even need EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM, because it's all "beneath the surface," how does one defend themselves against the accusation?


Plus I think the whole point's b.s. Kira, as was pointed out above, is frequently regarded as a great character, and she was the first regular female first officer in Star Trek.

It's a fact that many Trek fans didn't (and don't) like Janeway, which makes it a relevant comment to the topic being discussed. KimC brought it up first because no one else had mentioned it, I suppose.

I like Kira, but she wasn't in Starfleet, didn't captain a ship, and wasn't the star of the show.

 

[Anwar]

A story like Voyager demanded planning and a fresh way of thinking but B&B were incapable of that and forced out others who were.

.

Oh, for God's sake. Stop blaming Braga like he was one of the show's creators. He was only an Exec Producer for 2 seasons or so. And he certainly did not "drive anyone away", Ron Moore would have left even if Braga wasn't on the show. In fact, Moore never would have joined the show in the first place if not for Braga.

And Berman was never that heavily involved in VOY either.

VOY using recurring characters from TNG was simply because there was little chance of failure for doing so. If they created their own recurring characters, the odds that this character would be immediately disliked were too great for them to want to waste their money and time on. Too great a failure probability.

But if they used a character they already knew was familiar then there's no problem since there's little chance of failure.

It's like the "If the audience doesn't like this character then develop that character in a new way!" argument. If they DID spend several episodes and a lot of money on developing the character into something else, what would they do if the audience still hated that character? All their time, effort and money would have been for nothing.

And in a ratings-dependent show like VOY, experimentation like that without a clear success ratio would just be pure recklessness.

 

[Anwar]

Which members of the DS9 senior staff were enemies? The tension argument never made any sense.

Maybe not the Senior staff, but among the primary cast itself:

Kira considered Sisko and the Feds as the enemy and was against their presence on Bajor for the first season.

Odo and Quark.

Kira also didn't like Bashir either.

Quark and Sisko didn't exactly get along themselves.

Odo and Sisko on some things.

They all got over it after the first season, except for a couple of them. But by then they had the Dominion and Kai Winn for all the external conflict they'd ever need so the audience didn't care anymore. Which sort of makes it a double standard.

 

[exodus]

..because most keep comparing every Trek to DS9?
That seems to be the conclusion of nearly every issue you read about Voy. here.

"Voyager just was as good compared to DS9 because Ds9 did it this way......"

I don't think most people who are negative about Voyager would have liked to see it try to imitate DS9 per se. The reason why DS9 is brought up is that it is an example of a Trek show that took some risks, did things differently and broke with established dogma about what a Trek show could and could not do, could or could not be about. Not everything DS9 tried worked out in the end, far from it, but there was creative energy at work on this show: the writers tried hard to make something out of all the regular cast members and many supporting characters, they tried to do some ambitious storylines and deal with some challenging ideas. They could have coasted along on "TNG-standing still" episodes and basically survived on backwash from a more popular show for much longer than they did. Instead, the writers broke the mold a bit and tried to give the show its own identity.

That is what Voyager needed to do imo. Not try to imitate TNG or DS9, but find its own identity. If that meant fighting a bit harder with the network, then fine. If that meant working within certain constraints, then fine. DS9 didn't get to do everything the writers wanted to do either. I understand that Voyager had less freedom as a network show, but not all the blame can be laid at the door of some nameless executives. Try something. Anything. If the studio won't let you damage the ship, work on the characters. If the studio refuses to let you do any serialized storylines, make a plan for individual episodes that makes them feel like a coherent progression and gives them a sense of momentum. DS9's Season 5, often considered the show's best season, is not serialized in the traditional sense. There is a two-parter in the middle of the season. Beyond that, everything is built around individual episodes, but it feels like a coherent whole because a lot of thought was given to how the pieces fit together.

Doubtless the studio played a role in Voyager's creative struggles, but the bottomline, from my point of view, is that the show's creators were on auto-pilot. They had a formula that worked okay and simply had no interest in making the effort to do anything else, even if that meant producing a mediocre show instead of a great one.

I guess that's where we differ.
I never expected Voyager to be a great show just an dramatically entertaining one. So from my point of view, I did end up getting a great show. I also think Voyager in of itself did take chances, it was the first Trek to be on network TV and last longer than the original. It took a chance by casting a woman in a lead role. It took a chance with a character like Seven. It took a chance being the first Trek with a set theme. It took a chance telling stories that had little to no relation to much of the Trek universe we knew before. Too me, that says allot. It says Voyager succeed to spite all the obstacles set before it.
From my perspective Voyager is a great show.

 

[AMQ]

@ exodus I absolutely agree with you. VOY did take a lot of chances, and although it may have been a little mild at times and as stated above lacked episode arc, I still enjoyed it and can't really find anything major wrong with it.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

Not really, Paramount never would have let them serialize the show or have the crew disagree. Nor would they let them damage the ship or change the interior sets.

They wouldn't let them change the interior sets or have the crew disagree? I really don't believe you, you have any proof?
And it wasn't even a case of serialization, Voyager didn't even have good basic continuity which is all I really wanted.

 

[exodus]

@ exodus I absolutely agree with you. VOY did take a lot of chances, and although it may have been a little mild at times and as stated above lacked episode arc, I still enjoyed it and can't really find anything major wrong with it.

I think Voyager did have arcs, just very loose ones.

The Doctor's evolution is an arc
Janeway's conflicts with her own morals is an arc
Seven's return to humanity is an arc
The Borg stories from "Unity" to "Endgame" is an arc
Kes from "Caretaker" to "Fury" is an arc.
Be'Lanna' turmoil is one too.

So they're there, just not as direct as we've come to expect.

 

[Neutral Zone]

I always thought that Voyager made a great show because it was different but still ST. I know one or two people who do not thinkit is a Trek series because they can't get past TOS or TNG. Me I love all the Treks and Voyager is a Trek series!

 

[Anwar]

Not really, Paramount never would have let them serialize the show or have the crew disagree. Nor would they let them damage the ship or change the interior sets.

They wouldn't let them change the interior sets or have the crew disagree? I really don't believe you, you have any proof?
And it wasn't even a case of serialization, Voyager didn't even have good basic continuity which is all I really wanted.

Braga talked about how he wanted the "Year of Hell" story to be all of Season 4, but he was overruled because UPN said it would be too expensive to keep changing the ship model, change the interior sets every episode, and they couldn't save money on stock footage anymore. Plus it would've been too confusing to viewers who didn't watch every episode.

Michael Piller and Berman said that UPN ordered them to have the crews homogenize together by the end of the premiere episode.

Basic continuity? You don't mean silliness like "How many shuttles do they still have?" or "How many torpedoes did they use?" do you?

 

[Nightdiamond]

Turning the Year of Hell into a season long thing sounded cool. Creative, bold, not really done as much...those are the ideas I would really like to see...


One of the strangest pieces of a lack of continuity that I've noticed on Voyager is the distance from the point of origin thing.

The farther away from their starting point, that Voyager travels, the easier it seems to go back there.

The episode where the Kazon finally take over Voyager....

They've been traveling away from Kazon space for almost 2 years yet they're still in Kazon space. and within Seska's reach.

And also Kes returns 2 years after she leaves, and after the conflict is settled she is going home-but by now it should be about 6 years away.

And if I'm not mistaken (I could be) but a few things happened to propel them even further ahead and taking them further away from their starting point.

I may be wrong about the time and distance calculations, but it's something I noticed.

 

[kimc]

Actually, I think these two posts are a perfect illustration of why there is so much negativity about Voyager. According to some people, if you don't like the show, you are either amoral and degenerate, or a sexist pig. Good way to win friends and influence people.

That was not what I said. There are many things I don't like about the show myself.

It never ceases to amaze me that in a thread FULL OF SOUND ARGUMENTS about where Voyager fell short, some member is going to stick their fingers in their ears and yell "la-la-la You just can't handle a captain with a vagina!".

I wouldn't call every argument in this or any other thread sound. Most people simply post opinions and that's okay. I do believe based on some of the posts in this forum that Janeway is held to a different standard than the other captains - just like most women in non-traditional roles. It would be nice to have a logical discussion on that someday but given the reactions here today is not that day.

It's a fact that many Trek fans didn't (and don't) like Janeway, which makes it a relevant comment to the topic being discussed. KimC brought it up first because no one else had mentioned it, I suppose.

Actually I wasn't planning on bringing it up until I saw darkwing's comment. When I did I thought it may be a good opportunity to discuss the issue. I knew the chances were slim when I posted but hope springs eternal!

 

[Tulaberry whine]

This argument about Janeway and sexist fans seems completely divorced from reality at the time. Some of sci fi's most popular characters are strong, intelligent, commanding women such as Ripley, Sarah Connor and Princess Leia.

Moreover, at the time Voyager was airing other popular genre shows had female leads such as Dana Scully, Xena, Buffy, Ivonava and, yes, Kira. The decision to cast a female captain generated a lot of publicity in the mainstream press for the show and excitement among fans and I distinctly remember the reception to Caretaker, and Janeway in particular, as being overwhelmingly positive.

I guess my point is given the context in which the show aired Janeway's gender seems rather besides the point to me. Criticisms of her characterisations (which is all I've seen in this thread) should not be conflated into sexism anymore than criticisms of Sisko should be conflated into racism.

 

[Gaith]

the lack of continuing storylines.

Then DS9 happened, and the West Wing happened and 24 happened and the Sopranos happened and television grew up. But Voyager didn't, really.

Bingo. I've often thought that The West Wing was the best post-TNG Trek show - you've got the captain, the senior staff, the extremely powerful building, the military decisions, the occasional away missions to strange new Iowan towns... oh, and they killed more staffers in the first five episodes than ENT did in its first two seasons!

Furthermore, TWW had social commentary, which has been a large part of Trek since the beginning. In TOS' day, there were subjects and barriers that sci-fi could address that present-day-set shows couldn't. But by the time TWW premiered, you build a whole episode around the India/Pakistan conflict... and do so overtly. As Destructor said, the culture matured.

With the significance of its social commentary diminished, Voyager desperately needed to add something to the established TNG formula in order to stay relevant. Heavy serialization, interpersonal conflicts, scarcity of materials, sophisticated character writing... all of this would have helped. But for whatever reason, VOY fell short on all these counts, thus dooming it to mediocrity, though that still no excuse for the fiasco of the finale.

 

[kimc]

I guess my point is given the context in which the show aired Janeway's gender seems rather besides the point to me. Criticisms of her characterisations (which is all I've seen in this thread) should not be conflated into sexism anymore than criticisms of Sisko should be conflated into racism.

That's sweet. Truly. I really wish we lived in that kind of world. I hate to bust your bubble because I'd like to stay in it myself but most likely racism has an influence on how Sisko is perceived. Yeah, I know it sucks.

Back to Janeway I'm not saying people think "Since Janeway is a woman I'm going to criticize her." It's more like the same behaviors that are okay with Picard or Kirk are not okay with Janeway. An example of this is the often discussed "Equinox" scene where Chakotay prevented Janeway from allowing an alien to attack a member of the Equinox crew. There was much discussion when a similar incident with Archer (don't know the episode, stopped watching when I realized Porthos was my favorite character) drew little criticism.

I'm also not saying I'm immune to these types of attitudes myself. What I find interesting about what happened in this thread is how emotional the response to my original post was. No one likes to think they're prejudiced. Being accused of that makes people uncomfortable and angry. I can totally relate to that. I don't like it myself. In fact, I was not even saying that anyone who didn't like Janeway was prejudiced and it surprised me when it was taken that way. I was simply using a post to illustrate a behavior I've seen off and on over the years.

 

[vas2009]

I have to back up my girls… KimC and AuntieKate have made valid points. Sexism or not maybe some people just couldn’t grasp the idea of a woman in the big chair. Look at the crap Mulgrew had to go through with her hair, her voice; seriously in someway it was an issue for some. Attacks from the less intelligent viewers are Janeway looks like a man and she sounds like a smoker. Jeri Ryan was asked to be in nemesis. Why? Cuz she’s hot and they thought it would make the movie better to have there token pin-up girl. Please, there is no sexism in Star Trek at all. Jeri Ryan made the show so much better cuz she brought in a pair of Double Ds. No. Seven was a great character and she could have been great with less sex appeal. I almost stopped watching just on principle.
If you don't like Captain Janeway then you may not be sexist but only you can trully know that. Who's gonna admit it?

All shows have bad episodes and it all comes down to taste, PERSONALITY, and personal preference which includes how you like your women. If Jeri Ryan played Captain Janeway I'm not sure I would have liked her as much. That is my own bias as a women with DD's of her own. We all have them... personal biases that is.

Desperate housewives was a smash hit… just saying.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Some key points here. Voyager just seemed to ignore what the industry was doing. Mike Piller saw it - continuing storylines, edgier editing, serialised to an extent etc - and tried to make steps in the second season, but it just didn't take off.

The nature of dramatic television was changing rapidly, and Voyager just didn't notice. You watch a 2001 episode of Voyager, and it has the same "stage play"-ness, pacing, structure etc - as a 1987 episode of TNG.

Trek as a franchise just took its eye off the ball; DS9 noticed and tried to do some things about it - but they forgot to mention it to the writers down the hall, and unfortunately, Voyager paid the price.

Blame Berman, not the writers. The "reset button" was his edict. Thank God he ignored DS9 (the one occasion where I am glad he did) otherwise it too would have been reduced to that level of pablum.

 

[RyuRoots]

Well, there are members of the Trek Community who hate Voyager for the fact that it existed. Mainly these are Niners though, and the people who were expecting a show about the Fleeters quickly abandoning their morality so they could become remorseless space pirates. So it's more a case of "I hate that they stuck to their morals and were decent people!" than any legitimate critiques.

This is what I believe is a perfect illustration of why there is so much negativity about Voyager. As much as we like to believe we're all living in a liberated 21st century the fact of the matter is that some are not ready to see a woman captain a starship.

Actually, I think these two posts are a perfect illustration of why there is so much negativity about Voyager. According to some people, if you don't like the show, you are either amoral and degenerate, or a sexist pig. Good way to win friends and influence people.

Thank you for that post. One of the truest things I've ever heard about this whole issue. It sure is crazy how in the eyes of some people it's simply not possible to dislike parts of the show without being a lunatic extremist.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

And Janeway herself was shown to be a frakking hypocrite on multiple occasions, the biggest example being when she cold-bloodedly and ruthlessly murdered Tuvix in favor of getting Neelix and Tuvok back.

Then Seven came along...about 5 minutes after Brannon came...but I digress. Talk about a character (however interesting a concept) that the writers took every opportunity to shove down the viewers' throats. She was overwritten, overused, and overpowered. One sometimes wondered why they even NEEDED a crew with her around.

And while we're on the subject of the Borg...talk about an emasculation...the entire Federation nearly fell numerous times to them but Janeway the AllMighty can kick their asses from here to the Alpha Quadrant and back...

This is what I believe is a perfect illustration of why there is so much negativity about Voyager. As much as we like to believe we're all living in a liberated 21st century the fact of the matter is that some are not ready to see a woman captain a starship.

Please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say or imply that I had a problem with a woman CO or strong female characters in general. I said I had problems with uber-Janeway and Seven of Nine (as presented, as opposed to the character concept). That is entirely different.

 

[Anwar]

Some key points here. Voyager just seemed to ignore what the industry was doing. Mike Piller saw it - continuing storylines, edgier editing, serialised to an extent etc - and tried to make steps in the second season, but it just didn't take off.

The nature of dramatic television was changing rapidly, and Voyager just didn't notice. You watch a 2001 episode of Voyager, and it has the same "stage play"-ness, pacing, structure etc - as a 1987 episode of TNG.

Trek as a franchise just took its eye off the ball; DS9 noticed and tried to do some things about it - but they forgot to mention it to the writers down the hall, and unfortunately, Voyager paid the price.

Blame Berman, not the writers. The "reset button" was his edict. Thank God he ignored DS9 (the one occasion where I am glad he did) otherwise it too would have been reduced to that level of pablum.

Do your homework. Berman was not behind the reset button. And he didn't ignore DS9, that's just hyperbole made up by Ira Behr so he could use Berman as a scapegoat.

And as for the negativity being because of how we defend the show, we wouldn't have to defend it the way we do if they show wasn't so unfairly attacked like it has been for 15 years. You can only take so much before realizing that being fair and tolerant just isn't working. And no other show in Trek gets this kind of ill-treatment either.

 

[Tulaberry whine]

I have to back up my girls… KimC and AuntieKate have made valid points. Sexism or not maybe some people just couldn’t grasp the idea of a woman in the big chair. Look at the crap Mulgrew had to go through with her hair, her voice; seriously in someway it was an issue for some. Attacks from the less intelligent viewers are Janeway looks like a man and she sounds like a smoker.

All captains in Trek are picked apart and held up to unrealistic expectations. Janeway enjoyed massive popularity when Voyager debuted - especially compared to the at-times nasty reception Picard and Sisko got when their respective series started. As for nit picky issues with hair, etc - all of the male captains had trouble with the fans regarding things like their hair (is it a toupe?), weight, accent, acting style, etc.

Jeri Ryan was asked to be in nemesis. Why? Cuz she’s hot and they thought it would make the movie better to have there token pin-up girl. Please, there is no sexism in Star Trek at all. Jeri Ryan made the show so much better cuz she brought in a pair of Double Ds. No. Seven was a great character and she could have been great with less sex appeal. I almost stopped watching just on principle.
If you don't like Captain Janeway then you may not be sexist but only you can trully know that. Who's gonna admit it?

So Voyager was a sexist show. Trek fans, according to this thread, many of the fans in this forum and - if we're being brutally honest -the ratings, never liked the show nor watched it. And this actually makes them sexist?

Huh?