Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?

Uhm, what?

I said "The reason we don't care about them". You didn't say "I personally don't care about them". You said "the audience didn't care". When I say "we", I'm speaking on behalf of the audience.

When we first saw everyone in the pilot, we didn't care about any of them because they were all strangers. The whole point of character development is to make the audience care about them. If, by the 4th season, all but 2 of the original main characters remained 2 dimensional and uninteresting, that means the writers had failed in their duty toward the main characters. If this was intentional, then they should have been guest stars instead of main characters in the first place.

 

I think I cared about the characters IN SPITE of how little they were developed.

 

Not true, even right off the bat there are some characters that the audience will just take to right away and some they'll write off.

 

The problem with Modern Trek is that they never move on from the characters that didn't work. They just shoved them to the background.

 

That's what happens when you have big casts. TOS was half-lucky in that it had a pretty small cast for central characters.

And I agree with you in that around 4 of VOY's cast should've been recurring characters to begin with.

 

No, that's what happens when you have lazy writers. Voyager was by far not the only TV show to have more than 3 main characters, and that certainly didn't happen on all of them.

 

Personally, I LOVE Voyager but I think it didn't meet its potential.

Though in that case I'd have to blame the writers and not the actors. The actors (imo) did a great job (especially Kate Mulgrew) but the characters, although developed, could've been further developed and I think more could've been done with them.

But I think one large reason may be due to the fact that all our favourite species from the old Treks weren't there (Ferengi, Klingons, Romulans etc.) and that the Voyager writers had to largely rely on their own species. Some people may have missed the old legends. xD

I haven't thought about it to any great degree but those reasons are the ones that struck me right away.

 

Am I not part of that audience?
Why is my side of the arguement not considered to you as another side of the audience?
What is popular opinion on here isn't a full representation of the full viewing audience.
I hope we're all aware of that.

That's not the contract those actors signed.
They're agents didn't negotiate a contract deal with Paramount to be guest stars, they signed on to be co-stars.
The actors willingly signed the contract and then re-signed a few years later. Signed, sealed, delivered, you're locked in. However as a producer of a show with a fickle audience, you do what the polls tell you to try and make it work. If audience feedback at the time tells you they like the EMH more than Chakotay, you push up the part of that character to keep them locked in. That's not failure, that's trying to listen to your audience while juggling to meet ther demands of the studio. These deceisons aren't just made by one person, they're made by many often in meetings. The majority of them made these choices based on lots of information brought before them. If they knew how some would feel about it later, would they have done it? Maybe not but in the moment you do what you must to try and please the crowd. Producing a show isn't cut & dry. It's easy to think they failed not doing their job and looking back on everything in retrospect. If we were in their shoes, in that moment, we probably would have made the same choices.

 

Well, to be honest they could have shown the Doctor more while trying their hardest to improve Chakotay's character in what time he now had so he'd be more viable. Or include Chakotay in Doctor stories to try and develop him better while showing off the Doctor.

But Beltran being as uncooperative as he was probably put the kibosh on that.

 

Exactly.
Beltran went from stubbling over his lines to not learning them at all. That holds up production and costs more money because you've got Union guys on the set now being paid OT, not mention other bills like lighting for now being on longer than expected. So, you cut losses to cut expense.

 

It would've helped to wait a few more years until DS9 was finished while working on VOY. That way they'd probably have hired better actors and created better character concepts to begin with (Torres, Harry, Neelix to an extent, Chakotay to an extent).

 

..there were toys and videos games to made from Trek now, Paramount wasn't going to loose out on that momentum. Not with Star Trek: the Experance waiting to launch and a new network to compete with FOX and/or the WB. Trek was bigger then than it ever was. During that time, waiting just wasn't an option.

Generally speaking, I think it's easy to blame the writers/producers and call them lazy when we don't factor in or aren't aware of all elements behind the scenes than made them make these choices. I think very few consider "Where are they gathering their information from" or "what other factors were involved" for them not to make the choices we think might have worked better. IMHO aren't we the ones that are lazy for passing judgment on them without bothering to take all that into account?

 

But even Star Wars knew better than to try and make TV shows at the same time they were making the Prequel movies, or try and make a TV show while they were making the OT.

With all that stuff, like the Experience and everything, did it occur to them that over saturation would end up halting the momentum anyways?

 

One of the difference is, Star Wars is all readt reaching the audience Paramount wanted Trek too. Lucas & FOX have liitle worries that SW won't reach out to the new/next generation of fan. ST can often to stiff for many, which it why it has a harder time reacting the next wave of fan.

Why would they, TNG and it's film did very well. While DS9's viewership faltered next to TNG's, it still held strong for a show first run in syndication. There was very little at the time that showed signs of such trouble. I'm sure it was a concern but not one they thought they couldn't get out of. Voyager is still a success story, it endured to spite all that was set against it.

However, over saturation wasn't the only issue.
Local networks in major citys showed Voyager at the same time as DS9.
Some cities didn't show Voyager at all.
I live in the NYC area, which is considered one of the huge entertainment hubs.
It's also the most densely populated areas in the US.
NYC was one of those cities where Voyager was shown up against DS9.
How many Neilson households are in this area alone?
How many of them were Trek viewers?
How many of the viewing audience were divided upon which one to watch that night?
How does that effect the status of a show?

That's another factor.
Did Voyager disappoint due to stories or is a major part due to network scheduling?
During sweeps weeks, who got the bigger budget due to higher viewer turn out?

 

Yes, playing Trek against itself was a bonehead move. I agree.

But so was splitting the viewership in the first place. I'm probably not thinking business-like but I think it'd work better to have all the audience focused on one Trek rather than split them between two.

 

Agreed but I'm not complete sure how this part works but I'm fairly sure the studios themselves have no control over what each individual provider does as far airing what and when in each city. I think it was the choice of each city provider of the schedule.

....or is it the sponcers?

....or is it network of power?
NBC, ABC, CBS & FOX being stronger established networks have more say over their schedule than a newer players like UPN or syndication?
Like I said, on that part of it I'm not sure.

 

We're spiraling away from the point here. Your original statement was: "I personally don't think Voy. lost much of anything not fully developing characters many in the audience didn't care about the the first place." If you aren't part of the audience that didn't care about them, why would you think nothing was lost? My point is that you can't say this because if they had been developed there would have been something to care about. This is like saying "we shouldn't build a road here, because nobody drives here anyway."

I said "then they should have been guest stars in the first place," meaning before those contracts were even written up. By choosing to make them full time actors, the creators had a duty to treat them as main characters.

The factor you aren't taking into account is the first four seasons where they failed to develop all but 2 of their main characters. If the producers of those seasons had left and been replaced by a new team, I wouldn't have any reason to blame the new team for looking at the facts and then choosing to focus the remaining seasons on those 2 characters. But that's not how it happened -- it was the same team who had dug themselves into the hole they found themselves in.

 

Does no other point of view of the audience matter but those with your point of view?

Lets consider all those that didn't see developing Westly as someone they wanted to care about.
How many cringed at the character development storys of Troi or Geordi?

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.
Everything can be different in retrospect.

How does that change the fact we don't know where they were getting their information from to make the choices they made? It sounds like you belierve things can just be changed without anything else at all to consider. That the consensus of those on a massage board speaks for the entire audience. That my voice and those of the opposite stance hold no weight.

 

What the hell are you talking about? You have obviously misread my post.

 

Taking into consideration another side.