The list of good Paris episodes is so unimpressive as to confirm my point.
Janeway almost never exhibited a different personality, whereas you never, ever knew which Seven of Nine would be on deck. The alleged inconsistencies almost inevitably lie in complex decisions where there is no such thing as consistency in the first place. The saying, "Hard cases make bad law," arose because of this. In Caretaker, Tuvok observes out of the blue that the Prime Directive forbade assisting the Caretaker fulfill his plans. I don't understand the logic, but the intent is clear: Janeway will ignore the letter of the law to fulfill the spirit of the law, or some higher principle. (The Prime Directive is really rather a vacuous concept, which causes huge confusion, as does to a lesser extent the whole idea of Star Fleet principles.)
Janeway's depression in Night, is an exception to this rule. Depression as an untreatable disease flatly contradicts the 24th century setting. And curing it by meeting a life or death crisis flatly contradicts real life. Such problems return after the crisis is resolved. Plus, humanoid creatures living in interstellar space in the dark being able to tolerate the high temperatures in Voyager, not to mention having eyes for some unknown reason is a notable example of the ghastly science. The episode is badly premised, with arbitrary character "development."
The interesting thing about citing this is that Night has been hailed as an example of Voyager meeting its premise, i.e., fulfilling its potential. Harping on about wasted potential, then citing as an example of bad writing that uses that alleged potential exposes the illogic of the flawed premise of wasted potential. And ignoring the incredibly bad science in Night also shows that criticism of the bad science is not in fact a given. If the implication was that Janeway's depression in Night was a good development and this potential should have been developed instead of forgotten, I can only laugh.
As to the bullshit about opinion, it is merely commonly accepted opinion that there was any dramatic potential wasted. It is an opinion which no one can defend, even when you can point to other series that allegedly fulfilled that potential. Even if somehow you liked BattleStar Galactica, you didn't like it because it showed a non-pristine ship. I've kept thinking about the example of Stargate: Universe as well, except I find so little drama in the survivalist premise I never bothered to finish an episode. But why don't those of you who like survivalist epics point to SGU as an example showing how Voyager didn't live up to its potential? SGU is godawful because of its wretched premise. And complaining I'm just baiting SGU fans isn't an answer.
