Paramount and those incharge were afraid to take that risk again. TNG was a huge success and found a mainstream audience outside of the regular fanbase. So they tried shaking things up by making DS9, a show that was different than TNG. The mainstream audience didn't follow. Now while you want to please your audience, TV is also a business. So they had to find a way to bring that TNG audience back into Trek, so their answer was to make another show similar to TNG which everyone liked because Trek like any other show just isn't made for the diehards, especially now that it was on rating based network TV. While Voyager didn't grab the audience they wanted, it became more known than DS9 to the mass public. Paramount used that form of popularity to use Voy. as a marketing tool to promote merchendise. Paramount was going to find someway to make back the profit they put into it. So while DS9 is big amoung the Trek fanbase, Paramount lost money on it especially considering the cost it took to produce it. I can only imagine what the cost was just to run all the lights on the promanade & Ops during a 14 hour taping daily.
Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?
- Thread starter ReadyAndWilling
- Start date
Paramount and those incharge were afraid to take that risk again. TNG was a huge success and found a mainstream audience outside of the regular fanbase. So they tried shaking things up by making DS9, a show that was different than TNG. The mainstream audience didn't follow. Now while you want to please your audience, TV is also a business. So they had to find a way to bring that TNG audience back into Trek, so their answer was to make another show similar to TNG which everyone liked because Trek like any other show just isn't made for the diehards, especially now that it was on rating based network TV. While Voyager didn't grab the audience they wanted, it became more known than DS9 to the mass public. Paramount used that form of popularity to use Voy. as a marketing tool to promote merchendise. Paramount was going to find someway to make back the profit they put into it. So while DS9 is big amoung the Trek fanbase, Paramount lost money on it especially considering the cost it took to produce it. I can only imagine what the cost was just to run all the lights on the promanade & Ops during a 14 hour taping daily.
Aww, and I had a witty retort lined up and ready to go. It was one of my better ones too; it included an obscure reference to the 1935 Chicago Cubs team.
So do I, but who has been doing that? I don't doubt that some people do that, but they appear to be firmly in the minority of Voyager "haters", most people are able to criticise Voyager without criticising the show's fans. At least, that's what I try to do.
Sure.
Except for TAS fans, those guys suck!That was a jape.
Dammit, you were supposed to be the secret sleeper agent, but now you've revealed yourself to everyone!I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED that you forgot to name me as part of this little attempted coup. As you full well know, I've been just as active in the PMs as RyuRoots, zar and Saito S. I just haven't been as active in the thread since you all told me you needed someone working behind the scenes. Without me, all your attempts would be futile and meaningless.
Why do you hate me?!
Our plan is ruined! Voyager fandom will continue to exist! 
Right, it's time for us to resort to plan B: confining Voyager fans to labour camps. I'll look online to see if there's any second-hand gas chambers we can buy, but I seriously doubt it will arrive and be installed by the end of next week.
That was a tasteless jape.
Watch The Wire.
Who is refusing to accept the legitimacy of another choice?
What a deliciously ironic statement.
You have claimed this before and never provided any evidence for it. As I explained back then, diminished profits is not the same thing as losing money, if Paramount was losing money on DS9, they would have cancelled it. The fact that they didn't proves that it was profitable.
Aww, and I had a witty retort lined up and ready to go. It was one of my better ones too; it included an obscure reference to the 1935 Chicago Cubs team.
Save it for another time.Not necassarily because it was shown on a non-rating based TV, so lost of money in that medium doesn't equal cancellation. The fact that DS9's veiwing audience was less than TNG is a loss to a studio. Not all of DS9 being sold into syndication is a loss to a studio. Studios make back money from shows that are sold into syndication. It's basic knowledge of TV production. It doesn't mean it wasn't success during it's run, it just had some strikes against it.
These are the viewership totals from the start of TNG thru to the end of DS9:
Fall 1987 - Spring 1988: 8.55 Million
Fall 1988 - Spring 1989: 9.14 Million
Fall 1989 - Spring 1990: 9.77 Million
Fall 1990 - Spring 1991: 10.58 Million
Fall 1991 - Spring 1992: 11.50 Million
Fall 1992 - Spring 1993: 10.83 Million
Fall 1993 - Spring 1994: 9.78 Million
Fall 1994 - Spring 1995: 7.05 Million
Fall 1995 - Spring 1996: 6.42 Million
Fall 1996 - Spring 1997: 5.03 Million
Fall 1997 - Spring 1998: 4.53 Million
Fall 1998 - Spring 1999: 4.00 Million
8.55 million and increased during TNG run, then dropped to 4.00 million by the end of DS9.
Last edited:
So basically, Paramount and UPN didn't care about creativity, good storytelling, or art. All they wanted was $$$.
I guess that makes sense, I mean if you look at all the recent (last 13 or so years) shows about "One ship on its own" premises you'll notice that they were all the one show in that series: LEXX, Farscape, NuBSG. NuBSG is trying to expand with Caprica but it stands that it was the first show alone that did the "One ship alone" premise.
Stargate is also doing the "One ship alone" premise but they've ditched that in the first season by having them be connected to the main Stargate-verse and adding in villains from the other shows (The Lucian Alliance).
So, it seems that the "One ship alone" type story doesn't really work when dealing with a pre-established Universe.
I guess that makes sense, I mean if you look at all the recent (last 13 or so years) shows about "One ship on its own" premises you'll notice that they were all the one show in that series: LEXX, Farscape, NuBSG. NuBSG is trying to expand with Caprica but it stands that it was the first show alone that did the "One ship alone" premise.
Stargate is also doing the "One ship alone" premise but they've ditched that in the first season by having them be connected to the main Stargate-verse and adding in villains from the other shows (The Lucian Alliance).
So, it seems that the "One ship alone" type story doesn't really work when dealing with a pre-established Universe.
No, not really.
Voyager was just on a bad network.
If Voyager like other Trek, had stayed on a syndicated network they might have been allowed to take more of a risk because wouldn't of had so much riding on it.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Sci-Fi might have been a good place for it, if not syndication.
I still think it was a bad idea to air it at the same time as DS9, Trek is too niche to support multiple programs at the same time. Even Stargate waited until they thought SG-1 was going to end to do SGA, and then SGU when they knew SG-1 and SGA were over.
Sci-Fi might have been a good place for it, if not syndication.
I still think it was a bad idea to air it at the same time as DS9, Trek is too niche to support multiple programs at the same time. Even Stargate waited until they thought SG-1 was going to end to do SGA, and then SGU when they knew SG-1 and SGA were over.
For me? Stale writing, and I'm not convinced they made the best acting choices either.
No, but lower ratings (which is something DS9 continually suffered from) would mean that stations would probably pay less to air the show, which means that Paramount would receive less money. If that income was less than it cost to produce the show, Paramount would have stopped production.
Okay, let's go back to basic economics here:
I hope that sorts this out.
Nobody denies that DS9 made less money than TNG, and that was disappointing for Paramount and the producers. But to make the logical leap from a show making less money than TNG to that show making a loss... well, it's not a logical leap. DS9 may have made a loss, we don't know because we don't have the figures, but I can say that the logic you used to make that claim is faulty.
That's not what anybody is saying and you know it Anwar.
Just because people expected character development, continuing storylines, and interpersonal conflict doesn't mean they wanted the Fleeters and the Maquis literally trying to kill each other or turning into remorseless space pirates.
The facts are that 1.) a lot of the characters, not all but a lot, didn't get a lot of character depth or development (Kes, Kim, Chakotay), 2.) there were few continuing story arcs, and those the show did have weren't developed strongly enough or simply dropped mid-stream, 3.) two groups of people with different viewpoints aren't simply going to get along with no problems (if they had showed the Fleeters and Maquis overcoming their differences and learning to live in harmony with each other that would be one thing, but we weren't shown that - the Maquis just voluntarily start living the Starfleet lifestyle after Learning Curve because the scripts demanded it).
That's why a lot of people have issues with VOY. Not because the characters weren't assholes, but because the show didn't live up to its potential.
Now, let me say, again, that despite the fact that I acknowledge all of VOY's failings, I still love it for what it is. Could it have been more? Undoubtedly yes. Was it utter shit? Undoubtedly no.
I think the Maquis and the SF'ers buried their collective hatchets a little too quickly and smoothly. It didn't feel natural, and quickly came to feel like a gimmick.
I think Season 1 should have been full of backroom dealing and ugly arguments about who is a legitimate leader (and yes, maybe a failed attempt by the Maquis to take over, where about half their number was killed). Instead, they wanted you to believe that Janeway was THAT much of a compelling leader, which she wasn't.
She wasn't. She was just boring for the most part.
But again, this all comes back to rest at the feet of the writers. It became formulaic.
True.
For me, I hated DS9 too, because it was so clearly a B5 rip-off. It was as if the powers that be sat down with the writers and said "ok, we got wind of this new show Stracynski is doing about a crew set on a space station in a disputed sector of space. Do that, but make it Trekky".
That, and the acting was paper-thin for the large part though. Except for Odo. I loved Odo. (but that was probably just Rene Oberjenois coming through the stilted lines they gave him).
No, not if the show stayed above the cut off point which is 3.0 for a syndicated network or performed well during sweeps week.
B5 vs. DS9
This was Stracynski's quote taken from Wiki:
The pilot episode aired just weeks before the debut of Babylon 5. Babylon 5 creator, J. Michael Straczynski, indicated that Paramount was aware of his concept as early as 1989,[3] when he attempted to sell the show to the studio, and provided them with the series bible, pilot script, artwork, lengthy character background histories, and plot synopses for the first 22 episodes.[4][5] Paramount passed on Babylon 5, but later announced Deep Space Nine was in development after Warner Bros. announced its plans for Babylon 5. Straczynski has stated on numerous occasions that he thinks Paramount may have used his bible and scripts as the basis for DS9's first season.[6][7] On the subject of suing Paramount for infringement, Straczynski indicated he had no intentions to do so, and added:
That we have decided - for the best interests of all - to take a mature, 'let's move forward' approach does not mean that I have to pretend nothing happened. [...] It's on the level of 'Okay, YOU (Paramount) know what happened, and I know what happened, but let's try to be grownup about it for now,' though I must say that the shape-changing thing nearly tipped me back over the edge again. ..... The fact that the two shows were so similar at that time, one a nobody show from nowhere, the other bundled with the STAR TREK name, came within an inch of killing Babylon 5. That's one of the main reasons why it took nearly a period of four months [after the first pilot episode] before we finally got the go order for year one, after everybody crunched the ratings, and the demos, and decided to take a chance on it. And even THEN we were told, "The syndie market can't sustain two shows like this; you're gonna get creamed."
Babylon 5's household ratings averaged between 3 and 4% of the U.S. market, and the series ran four seasons in syndication until the dissolution of the Prime Time Entertainment Network, and then moved to cable channel TNT for its final season. The PTEN vs. UPN network rivalry also may have been a factor in this "bad blood" between the two shows, since both were competing for control of the same independent stations and status as the "5th network" to serve America.[8] Ultimately PTEN dissolved in 1997, while The WB and UPN merged to form The CW in 2006.
The problem with the Maquis was that they were never properly developed beforehand as the opposing group they were meant to be. Their real battle was with the Cardassians in the DMZ, not the Federation. Now that the DMZ and Cardies were 75,000 LY away there wasn't much to keep fighting over (and especially not with the Feds, the closest thing to help in 75,000 LY). It's not like being in charge would somehow make them get home faster.
If the other crew had been Romulans, the real enemies of the Federation with their own developed views, social structure, politics and military then there's a good plot in how they can co-exist.
It's also because Paramount was afraid of offending the feminists by portraying the first major female captain as being too weak to control the crew, no matter the circumstances. If the Maquis leader was also a woman, this may have been nipped in the bud.
It was a combination of UPN's interference, Jeri Taylor wanting more TNG, and general writer burnout. If Berman had been allowed to air the show when he wanted and hire new writers like he wanted it would've been better.
As for DS9 and B5, JMS said that while the Paramount Execs used some stuff for DS9 he doesn't think Berman and Piller ripped him off beyond some basic stuff. Space stations and wormholes/jump points aren't exactly his creation.
Except that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone refuses to accept the legitimacy of another choice.
Your standard of "evidence" is the same as Anwar's: you pull shit out of thin air that nobody actually said and use it against them.
But this is all besides the point: your whole post is an ad hominem argument. Even if everyone in this thread actually were the caricatures you make them out to be, believing that all episodic TV sucks and every opinion being a double standard -- none of this would have any bearing on the validity of the complaints being made. You're simply replying to every point with "Hah, you're just saying that because you like DS9!", shirking the responsibility of actually addressing the point being made rather than the person making it.
You don't have to "root through" anything, his refutation is the post directly under yours. You claimed there were only four Borg-centric episodes, which is grossly untrue.
stj:The general level of analysis is pitiful. I've been skipping around because it's not rewarding reading, but this at least tries for a little more honesty.
1. Apotheosis, space war, empires falling, etc. Space opera, in other words. I like me some space opera too but if they wanted more DS9 they'd have been better off making more DS9.
2. In other words, competing with DS9 made it look bad. If you say so.
3. The Star Trek vision of the future has its roots in the Sixties. Of course it's getting out of date. There's no reason to think it's any truer of DS9 than Voyager.
4. Since Voyager was on UPN, it certainly had more network meddling than a syndicated show. That's given. Shocking as it may seem, sometimes the suits are right. As near as I can make out, it is controversy that brings out the worst in them. Ditching Chakotay's electronic hallucinator religion was the character's last chance for a real contribution. And Chakotary wasn't a Neelix or Kim, his dramatic weakness hurt the show.
5. Less like DS9, in other words.
6. No, Voyager wasn't serialized like DS9.
7. This is pretty much the same thing, except it thinks doing comedy is a bad thing. If you say so.
8. This is incredibly stupid. I've seen posters talk about patched up ships!Just because someone lacks the sense to wonder where the patches are going to come from (floating by in the interstellar void?) doesn't mean they should be taken seriously. Again this is an incredibly blatant double standard. There's no way Voyager's replicators are any sillier than TNG's or DS9's. The whole notion of hardships is and was ridiculous. But people say they wanted more ridiculous? This is too crazy to be true.
9. Again, this is saying, not DS9. DS9's notion of character development is turning Sisko into a god, Odo into a god, Bashir into a superhuman, Kira into whatever seems cool, even a kind of Jewish stepdaughter to Hitler!
10. Seven was so inconsistent the character should have been controversial. The cat suit was squarely in the Star Trek tradition of miniskirts. This double standard requires a level of dishonesty that is truly remarkable.
11. Star Trek has always had some abominable stories. Thankfully, most of them could be skipped because the series was episodic. The difficulty is understanding how someone could like a serialized show whose Big Story is a disaster.
12. Another shameless double standard. Prophets, anyone?
13. Borg fatigue? There were, what? four episodes featuring the Borg Collective? Scorpion, Dark Frontier, Unimatrix Zero and Endgame? After First Contact, if there's no Borg Queen, the Borg aren't on stage. It's absurd claims like this that makes you think the real objections are not articulated.
Liking DS9 doesn't require fatuous criticism of Voyager.
Thanks for responding to my notes. I wished you had been a little more tactful, but that's just me: I don't respond well to harsh criticism (I'm too timid!). Still, I appreciate you engaging me.
And also: I'm not saying my points were valid, for I *love* VOY. I was merely trying to move the discussion back on topic and think of possible reasons for why VOY tends to rank towards the bottom here.
And I'm sure you're right in most ways. Again, I was only trying to come up with some hypothetical reasons why VOY isn't as popular. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to create an argument. I just hastily put a list of possible reasons that seem to be typical points of criticism against VOY.
Well, no, not unless you accept JMS's interpretation of events to be true. We know that JMS submitted his series bible to Paramount several years before DS9 or Babylon 5 made it to air, but Paramount is a big company and there is no proof (that I'm aware of) that Rick Berman or Michael Piller read, or even knew about, that bible. They say that Paramount came to them asking for another Trek spin-off show, but they didn't want to do two starship based shows at the same time, so they decided to either do a space-station show or a show set on a colony. Originally, they were leaning towards doing the colony-based show, and there's even some early sketches of what the colony might have looked like on the DVD special features, but in the end they settled on doing it on a space station because they wanted to film it in a controlled environment rather doing a lot of location shooting.So, to boil all this down to the most important part,
I'm right.
As for his claims that the rest of the show was similar, I don't see it. There are similarities, but there's also a lot of differences, and there's even situations where the DS9 writers introduced elements that B5 did later, such as the introduction of the small, fast and powerful warship Defiant/White Star. And at the end of the day, the characters are quite different and go on unique journeys, and since DS9 and B5 are both character shows as much as they are action-adventure shows, they are quite different. I like them both for what they are, preferring DS9 because I watched it at an earlier age.
Well, no, not unless you accept JMS's interpretation of events to be true. We know that JMS submitted his series bible to Paramount several years before DS9 or Babylon 5 made it to air, but Paramount is a big company and there is no proof (that I'm aware of) that Rick Berman or Michael Piller read, or even knew about, that bible. They say that Paramount came to them asking for another Trek spin-off show, but they didn't want to do two starship based shows at the same time, so they decided to either do a space-station show or a show set on a colony. Originally, they were leaning towards doing the colony-based show, and there's even some early sketches of what the colony might have looked like on the DVD special features, but in the end they settled on doing it on a space station because they wanted to film it in a controlled environment rather doing a lot of location shooting.So, to boil all this down to the most important part,
I'm right.
As for his claims that the rest of the show was similar, I don't see it. There are similarities, but there's also a lot of differences, and there's even situations where the DS9 writers introduced elements that B5 did later, such as the introduction of the small, fast and powerful warship Defiant/White Star. And at the end of the day, the characters are quite different and go on unique journeys, and since DS9 and B5 are both character shows as much as they are action-adventure shows, they are quite different. I like them both for what they are, preferring DS9 because I watched it at an earlier age.
Why would JMS have lied?
Similar threads
- Sticky
