Why is the Trek community so negative about Voyager?

[zar]

What's so special about the "emasculation" quote? We're all saying the same thing, yet whenever you try to prove that we hold outrageously overgeneralized opinions you point to darkwing_duck's quote from 20 or 30 pages ago. I suspect it's because he has lost interest in the thread and so isn't here to tell you that you're full of shit. Meaning you can sit there and slander him "unless he says otherwise" for as long as you need to.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for all those citations I asked for.

 

[Anwar]

He was the only one to be so extreme over it that he says that just because VOY managed to survive the Borg repeatedly it "emasculated" them (I wasn't aware that the heroes managing to live to fight another day meant the enemy lost all respect and power) compared to everyone else.

 

[zar]

He was the only one to be so extreme

No, he's just the only one whose words you decided to twist to the extreme. Using your bizarre logic you could have easily done it to any of our quotes about VOY weakening the Borg. You already claimed that we believe all manner of nonsense, but when it comes time to back it up with a quote, the only one you focus on is from someone who participated in this thread far less than the rest of us and is no longer here to defend himself. Curious.

And I'm still waiting.

 

[number6]

He still hasn't disclosed which showrunners got fired.

 

[Harvey]

^^
Well, he claimed that Piller and Taylor were fired, didn't he?

 

[number6]

Except they weren't. And he has yet to prove it because he keeps pulling "facts" out of his crack.

 

[stj]

Skimming some more, and still seeing people pretending that only what they personally said in this thread counts. Ignoring context is falsification. (Falsification is polite for lying.) No one shows they have sophisticated, perceptive views by attacking someone else for criticizing the crazy. Especially since everyone knows the crazy has indeed been around for years.

The real problem is that the supposedly nuanced thinkers who don't hold the extreme positions can't articulate the differences between their intelligent, commonsense views and the simplistic, extreme views. Claiming Anwar has the responsibility to discern the nonexistent dividing line is gall, not an argument.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Naturally, in DS9 when they had the Feds get past the Dominion's advantages of polarion beams no one complained that the Dominion's weapon tech never developed shield-piercing beams that could surpass the Fed's new shields. They were okay with the Domion's strength being taken away to better equal the Feds, but can't stand it when VOY's crew gets their hands on enough reverse-engineered Borg tech to survive the Borg.

So, in other words, you're perfectly happy that VOY's crew was able to equalize with the Borg but can't stand it that DS9 had the Federation do the same with the Dominion. Who's accusing who of double standards around here?

They wanted better developed enemies, but when they had the Kazon show up for 2 years all they did was complain that the Kazon kept showing up.

Who? Quotes please.

When the 8472 showed up and showed they were capable of defeating the Borg, the audience complained that a species capable of defeating the Borg existed.

Quotes?

When VOY found a way of communicating with the Alpha Quadrant and this meant that the writers were finally doing some big changes to the status quo, the audience complained this just ruined the premise even though a major complain was how there were no carried over plots.

Who?

VOY had the most unpleasable audience out of all the Trek shows, fact.

Yeah, ENT is absolutely loved compared to VOY.

The 8472 were liked when the audience thought they'd be the start of some kind of 100-part mega-storyline that would take over the entire series, and stopped liking them when they realized it was just a 2-parter to get the Borg out of the way (which had to be done).

Why?

And haven't you yourself said that you wanted more continuity?

The Doctor was a liked character, meaning that if they do something bad to him and he's affected by to the point he's just contemplating his navel for a season instead of being the snarky semi-jerk he usually was they'd just complain that they changed his personality and he's not the snarky guy they liked before even if the trauma he endured would logically change him.

Yeah, that's not exaggeration at all. Developing the character with a traumatic event naturally means having him "contemplate his navel for a season."

Put up with what I had to put with for 15 years of defending VOY and you'll see what the worst the fandom has to offer is REALLY like.

You poor thing.

I guess nobody is allowed to criticize VOY anymore - it butthurts Anwar you thugs!

The fandom has been more accustomed to VOY fans being the whipping boys of Trek, not bothering to fight back. THAT'S why they're staring, they're surprised anyone has backbone.

You're absolutely right Anwar. In the last fifteen years I've NEVER encountered anyone who defends VOY.

Wait a second, I'm remembering something....

I like VOY

WOAH! My mind has just been blown!

 

[Admiral Shran]

One show gets away with everyone the other is criticized for. Thus meaning that most criticisms of the show are invalid and simple bias.

Well seeing as how I haven't seen those shows and still criticize VOY, you're criticism is invalid and simple bias.

TNG only used the Borg in 4 or so episodes (I count two-parters as one episode). In their intro the ENT only escaped thanks to Q, in BOBW they won on a plot contrivance/technicality that couldn't be replicated, in "I, Borg" they just hid in the Nebula and the Borg left without knowing they were there

From the same guy who said the Enterprise was never able to hide from the Borg.

If a guy says "The Borg...talk about emasculation" and just leaves it at that, and doesn't come back to say "Well, Scorpion was okay" then Scorpion is part of the emasculation.

Okay, so there's no confusion about what I'm saying, I'm going to make this simple....

VOY emasculated the Borg through a cumulative process, i.e. overusing them. However, not all Borg appearances were bad. Scorpion was a great episode.

 

[Saquist]

They went up to the Unicomplex (or rather, they followed a Borg ship there instead of finding it), broke in and ran like Hell. It's not like they did any real damage.

It's the Borg Unicomplex.
You know now that there is a Queen instead of collective consciousness the reason for the Borg's obliviousness falls directly on her. And that whole...."i'm invisable to the borg" was really a poor method of a plot device.

So in this case...yeah...they really did have a choice on wheter to encounter the borg and they took the opportunity to make them look exceedingly inept.

They went against the Queen, but it was revealed in the end that the Queen let them get away every time and could have destroyed them if she wanted.

Yes, that furthered the stupidity of the Borg.
Where TNG made them look like Force of Nature so powerful that the irrelevant does not catch their attention, Voyager and First Contact made them look arrogant and self important extentions of Single Ego.

You can't make the Borg a recurring villain who interacts with the crew (the way every other Trek villain does) with just a big ominous voice.

I Disagree. I think you can and it showed a great lack of imagination on the First Contact Writers to go against everything they had written about the Borg.

Humanity vs Machines have been done about a billion times.
Terminator, Matrix, Mass Effect, Battlestar Galactica, Foundation and more books than I can recount. It's just a matter of creativity how you represent the whole.

Best of Both Worlds showed us one of our own but there are man different ways not only to avoid focussing on the Borg as a conscious Villain as their are giving them a Villain status and they sold out and fell short. I could have done better because their are greater stories to tell in the midst of a Borg Invasion, there is greater humanity and drama then what they portrayed.

Well, thank you for showing that yes, some folks didn't like Scorpion and found it to be damaging to the Borg, and Unimatrix Zero was...well I don't remember that episode well anyways.

Voyager has had bad results in the Two parter department.
I think only two 2-parter episodes were worth the hype. Equinox and MAYBE...Year of Hell.

The problem was that the audience couldn't handle the idea of one ship having such an impact on the Galaxy (nevermind that Farscape did it and no one cared) or the Borg. Maybe if VOY had joined up with the some Anti-Borg Resistance force and did "Unimatrix Zero" with their help it would have mitigated the effect since the audience would be "Oh well they teamed up with a bunch of folks who had been researched ways of killing Borg for years...".

That would have been far more likely than the lone ship vs the Collective but it's like Guy said...Voyager needed to be doing some serious running and they really never did and Borg certainly didn't do any chasing.

But that would have cost too much money, so I see why they didn't.

Yeah, believe me I know.

In those episodes the Borg sent one ship to the other side of the Galaxy, basically a scouting/probe mission. It made sense it wasn't some huge force. VOY took place in the Borg's own territory where logically they'd have a larger force traveling around all the time since it was their actual home.

The Federation doesn't operate in Fleets in it's own territory why would the Borg? Even the Klingons and Romulans only operate in 2 or 3 ship patrols.

The Borg were only strong when there wasn't much known about them, after BOBW the Feds knew more, developed weapons that could destroy them without some plot contrivance, and VOY had access to tons more information about the Borg than anyone before them.

The Borg still had fire power on their side and First Contact at least showed that so while the "jig was up" on the invulnerability thing they still trashed the Melbourne in one blow (weapon to hull) and that proves the have the firepower of an entire fleet in one cube. First Contact trashed dozens of ships.

As for what Guy is saying, the reason they told us they'd run from the Borg but never showed us was because they didn't want to make the crew be cowards.

Oh you see that sux
It defangs the Bear of the Borg.

After all, the TOS and TNG crews never ran from anything, they always found some way of stopping whatever Doomsday Machine, or Super-Probe or whatever destructive force that threatened them.

TNG ran from the Borg under Picard and under Captain Crusher. Picard did it twice. It's just common sense when you've got an enemy that strong. Finding a way to stop it is fine but running from it initially while you figure it out is suspense.

Look at movies like Empire Strikes Back where the entire movie plot is..."run"

 

[Anwar]

So in this case...yeah...they really did have a choice on wheter to encounter the borg and they took the opportunity to make them look exceedingly inept.

The would come off as inept no matter what. It's either do a story about them, or just have them ignore VOY for whatever reason. Having them ignore VOY wasn't dramatically feasible.

Where TNG made them look like Force of Nature so powerful that the irrelevant does not catch their attention, Voyager and First Contact made them look arrogant and self important extentions of Single Ego.

TNG stopped treating them as a "Force of Nature" all the way back in "I, Borg". The Borg as a "Force of Nature" used up its mileage after BOBW and weren't viable anymore.

I Disagree. I think you can and it showed a great lack of imagination on the First Contact Writers to go against everything they had written about the Borg.

Nope, the only way to make the Borg a recurring enemy while keeping them as a big boring Collective would be if they were played off a second enemy (of interesting individuals) who were the real enemies of the story. As in, have VOY be fighting someone else when the Borg show up to start blasting people so all the REAL drama and interactions are with the individuals.

The Borg themselves stink as the recurring enemy on their own.

Humanity vs Machines have been done about a billion times.
Terminator,

Terminator uses machines that can talk and think on their own, not a Collective.

Matrix,

Same deal, not a Collective.

Mass Effect

The Reapers aren't a Collective, they're all individual machines that enslave individuals to their will while letting them keep their individuality (thus, are not boring).

, Battlestar Galactica

Not a Collective, in fact the Cylons are more than capable of fighting one another (even same type cylons).

Best of Both Worlds showed us one of our own but there are man different ways not only to avoid focussing on the Borg as a conscious Villain as their are giving them a Villain status and they sold out and fell short. I could have done better because their are greater stories to tell in the midst of a Borg Invasion, there is greater humanity and drama then what they portrayed.

BOBW only worked because it was the first real "Borg Invasion" story, and because of Locutus. It would get really boring if everytime the Borg invaded they assimilated a main character to serve as their mouthpiece. And Borg invasions would be boring after BOBW as well.

That would have been far more likely than the lone ship vs the Collective but it's like Guy said...Voyager needed to be doing some serious running and they really never did and Borg certainly didn't do any chasing.

TNG made it clear that you can't run from the Borg. Not successfully.

The Federation doesn't operate in Fleets in it's own territory why would the Borg? Even the Klingons and Romulans only operate in 2 or 3 ship patrols.

By DS9, they all did fly around in squadrons and stuff. Before it was mainly because of budgetary concerns.

Oh you see that sux
It defangs the Bear of the Borg.

They were already getting defanged in "I, Borg". And it was either a choice between emasculating the crew or defanging the Borg. No one wants to watch a show about a bunch of cowards who run away from everything when prior shows have the Fed crews always winning.

TNG ran from the Borg under Picard and under Captain Crusher. Picard did it twice. It's just common sense when you've got an enemy that strong. Finding a way to stop it is fine but running from it initially while you figure it out is suspense.

But the fact of the matter is that Crusher, with a SKELETON CREW, still managed to destroy the Borg Cruiser.

Look at movies like Empire Strikes Back where the entire movie plot is..."run"

Oranges and apples, but they still won in the end.

And Admiral Shran...

So, in other words, you're perfectly happy that VOY's crew was able to equalize with the Borg but can't stand it that DS9 had the Federation do the same with the Dominion. Who's accusing who of double standards around here?

I'm saying that if DS9 could do it with the Dominion, there's nothing stopping VOY from doing it with the Borg.

And I also said it didn't make much sense that the Borg didn't know the ENT was hiding in the Nebula in "I, Borg".

 

[exodus]

Skimming some more, and still seeing people pretending that only what they personally said in this thread counts. Ignoring context is falsification. (Falsification is polite for lying.) No one shows they have sophisticated, perceptive views by attacking someone else for criticizing the crazy. Especially since everyone knows the crazy has indeed been around for years.

The real problem is that the supposedly nuanced thinkers who don't hold the extreme positions can't articulate the differences between their intelligent, commonsense views and the simplistic, extreme views. Claiming Anwar has the responsibility to discern the nonexistent dividing line is gall, not an argument.

Interesting.

 

[TheGodBen]

Ignoring context is falsification. (Falsification is polite for lying.)

It's a good thing you clarified that word for me, it hasn't yet come up on my word-a-day calender.

No one shows they have sophisticated, perceptive views by attacking someone else for criticizing the crazy.

No, you show sophisticated views by using words like "droll", "onus" and "falsification". And if you want to be really sophisticated, you wear a monocle while doing so.

Especially since everyone knows the crazy has indeed been around for years.

I've only been here two years, but in that time I have not seen many crazies on the "hater" side of the argument, most of it is based on ignorance, rudeness and rash judgements (and I include some things that I've said in that). I've seen the same number of crazies on the other side of the argument as on the hater side.

The real problem is that the supposedly nuanced thinkers who don't hold the extreme positions can't articulate the differences between their intelligent, commonsense views and the simplistic, extreme views. Claiming Anwar has the responsibility to discern the nonexistent dividing line is gall, not an argument.

Actually, it is the basis of academia, all reasonable people accept the rule that "the burden of proof is the upon the one making the claim". Go ahead, try writing an academic paper, or even a wikipedia article, without citing any references to your claims and you will be ignored or your work deleted. Because that's how the world works, it's not up to us to disprove claims made by others, it's the responsibility of the person making the claim to provide the evidence to back themselves up.

Obviously, this is only a Star Trek forum, so we don't have to provide references every time that we post something, but if we make a claim and are asked to back it up with proof, it is our responsibility to provide that proof or disown the claim.


But in this case, I will be generous and provide the proof you request that the claims being made about the crazy Voyager haters is an extreme reaction to the stupidity of a minority. You see, we actually had a trial on the subject last year where Anwar's claims were put to the test. Here is the extensive list of haters Anwar came up with:

Okay, off the top of my head I can remember three of the VOY haters (thought thinking about people like that is damaging to the mind...): Navaros, jimbtnp2 and arguably Gotham Central. DevilEyes is almost there. I would've mentioned [TheGodBen] but he's changed his tune a little bit. There were others but looking at their posts they haven't posted in a long time (I scared a lot of the haters off, good. Most of them haven't posted in months).

Five people. After 16 years of supposedly relentless Voyager bashing, Anwar could only name five people. DevilEyes and myself defended ourselves from the absurd claim, with the mods seemingly agreeing that we are not obsessed haters, jimbtnp2 was banned over a year at that point, so that left a total of two people, and I will concede that Navaros is indeed overzealous in his hatred of Voyager.

So, how did it all end? Anwar's claims were found not to hold water, at least not enough water to justify his actions.

So, when I say that I'm not a crazy Voyager hater, that's not just me saying that, I have official backing from the mods. And when I say that the Voyager hatedom is greatly exaggerated by some, I have official backing from the mods on that too. And if you make the claim again, you had better come with some evidence of your own, because I've got the closing posts of that "trial" to back me up, while you appear to have nothing but absurd claims.

 

[exodus]

Which "they"? Rick Sternbach (technical consultant) hates the episode for so grossly distorting both real and fake science. Brannon Braga (writer) is embarrassed by it and calls it "terrible". It made Kate Mulgrew uncomfortable and Robert Duncan McNeill was so dumbfounded he insisted on rewriting part of it.

As far as I'm aware, Braga only felt that way about it in retrospect. The consultant only offers advice, he has no say in what scripts are picked because that's what it comes down too. Out of all the stories and scripts they recieve weekly, they still picked "Threshold" out of all of them. So I still think, they didn't take it as seriously as we do to still pick it out of all the other stories they could've had the choice to do.

 

[exodus]

Ignoring context is falsification. (Falsification is polite for lying.)

It's a good thing you clarified that word for me, it hasn't yet come up on my word-a-day calender.

No one shows they have sophisticated, perceptive views by attacking someone else for criticizing the crazy.

No, you show sophisticated views by using words like "droll", "onus" and "falsification". And if you want to be really sophisticated, you wear a monocle while doing so.

I've only been here two years, but in that time I have not seen many crazies on the "hater" side of the argument, most of it is based on ignorance, rudeness and rash judgements (and I include some things that I've said in that). I've seen the same number of crazies on the other side of the argument as on the hater side.

The real problem is that the supposedly nuanced thinkers who don't hold the extreme positions can't articulate the differences between their intelligent, commonsense views and the simplistic, extreme views. Claiming Anwar has the responsibility to discern the nonexistent dividing line is gall, not an argument.

Actually, it is the basis of academia, all reasonable people accept the rule that "the burden of proof is the upon the one making the claim". Go ahead, try writing an academic paper, or even a wikipedia article, without citing any references to your claims and you will be ignored or your work deleted. Because that's how the world works, it's not up to us to disprove claims made by others, it's the responsibility of the person making the claim to provide the evidence to back themselves up.

Obviously, this is only a Star Trek forum, so we don't have to provide references every time that we post something, but if we make a claim and are asked to back it up with proof, it is our responsibility to provide that proof or disown the claim.


But in this case, I will be generous and provide the proof you request that the claims being made about the crazy Voyager haters is an extreme reaction to the stupidity of a minority. You see, we actually had a trial on the subject last year where Anwar's claims were put to the test. Here is the extensive list of haters Anwar came up with:

Okay, off the top of my head I can remember three of the VOY haters (thought thinking about people like that is damaging to the mind...): Navaros, jimbtnp2 and arguably Gotham Central. DevilEyes is almost there. I would've mentioned [TheGodBen] but he's changed his tune a little bit. There were others but looking at their posts they haven't posted in a long time (I scared a lot of the haters off, good. Most of them haven't posted in months).

Five people. After 16 years of supposedly relentless Voyager bashing, Anwar could only name five people. DevilEyes and myself defended ourselves from the absurd claim, with the mods seemingly agreeing that we are not obsessed haters, jimbtnp2 was banned over a year at that point, so that left a total of two people, and I will concede that Navaros is indeed overzealous in his hatred of Voyager.

So, how did it all end? Anwar's claims were found not to hold water, at least not enough water to justify his actions.

So, when I say that I'm not a crazy Voyager hater, that's not just me saying that, I have official backing from the mods. And when I say that the Voyager hatedom is greatly exaggerated by some, I have official backing from the mods on that too. And if you make the claim again, you had better come with some evidence of your own, because I've got the closing posts of that "trial" to back me up, while you appear to have nothing but absurd claims.

stj didn't call anybody out by name, why do you think he's directly talking about you if you don't feel you fit the claim? Besides Anwar, it seems too me like his statement was a general one.
Nor do I see him drawing a line in the sand.

 

[kimc]

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.

Which is an utterly ridiculous comparison. We're talking about two different Captains from two very different times. Archer and his crew were practically making it up as they went along, especially after the collapse of the Vulcan High Command. They were a far cry from the "enlightened" attitudes of Picard, Sisko, and Janeway's era who had the benefit of living in the Paradise that was the Federation. Hell, even Janeway herself commented that some of the things Kirk and Sulu got away with in their time, wouldn't be acceptable in the Starfleet she knew, acknowledging that it was a different time, with a different breed of Starfleet Captain.
Archer's actions in the example you cited remind me of Batman's line to Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins; "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you", which fits with Archer's character.

Using the differences between Janeway and Archer as a way of reinforcing your "people couldn't handle a female captain" argument, is just grasping.

I disagree, especially if what you're saying is that Archer and Kirk can be held to a lower ethical standard because they came earlier. One could also argue that given Voyager's situation of being lost in the Delta quadrant without Starfleet backup Janeway should have gone the Ransom route and jettisoned all ethics. In fact, one hears this criticism of Voyager quite a bit. Consequently, your argument doesn't hold much water. Nice try though.

 

[kimc]

Plot contrivance victory.

Yet they still won, which torpedoes your claims about them being unbeatable.

"Boo-hoo, wah-wah, the Feds got their hands on Borg tech and learned how to defend themselves! I can't stand it!"

Says who? There are plenty of story telling avenues you can take an enemy, even one as powerful as the Borg, if you have IMAGINATION and creativity.


No they didn't. Stop making things up. The Dominion were a consistant threat from beginning to end.


Good thing the Borg weren't over powered then . . .


Just because people wanted reoccuring villains doesn't mean we wanted ones that were as shitty as those you listed. You seem to be ignoring the fact that most people hated those enemies because they were fucking lame!


In FC . . . a line which was made to set up their appearance in VOY. That doesn't count.


Except this, "point," has been proven wrong again and again.


Seriously . . . fucking Christ, you're the most insufferable, "person," I've encountered in these forums.


Fucking broken record . . .


Oh, my god . . . seriously, you having to be trolling at this point. No one can possibly be this stubborn and stupid.


TOS is my favorite show FYI, you nobody. So, I don't know what the fuck you're babbling about. Look up sarcasm please.

Excuse me if Niners hate the show for no reason and can't stand it if anyone bothers calling them on it. If they didn't want to discuss it, they shouldn't have bashed the show to begin with.

You don't make points though. You bitch and moan in your own butthurt way and spread lies and hyperbole. All you've proven is how utterly insane and idiotic hardcore VOY fans can be. If anything, you're making the show look (somehow) worse.

VOY gets trashed for no reason, VOY defenders defend. Cause and effect, dude.

I don't care if I get warned/banned for this. You're an idiot.

Warning for flaming. Comments to pm.

 

[TheGodBen]

stj didn't call anybody out by name, why do you think he's directly talking about you if you don't feel you fit the claim? Besides Anwar, it seems too me like his statement was a general one.
Nor do I see him drawing a line in the sand.

Because stj appears to be of the opinion that there's no valid criticism that can be made of Voyager, that there is a "nonexistant dividing line" between moderate Voyager criticism and full-on hatred. Since I watched every episode of Voyager, graded it, and came out with a score just slightly below average, by his logic I must be a full-on hater because my views are apparently no different than the likes of Navaros.

 

[exodus]

stj didn't call anybody out by name, why do you think he's directly talking about you if you don't feel you fit the claim? Besides Anwar, it seems too me like his statement was a general one.
Nor do I see him drawing a line in the sand.

Because stj appears to be of the opinion that there's no valid criticism that can be made of Voyager, that there is a "nonexistant dividing line" between moderate Voyager criticism and full-on hatred. Since I watched every episode of Voyager, graded it, and came out with a score just slightly below average, by his logic I must be a full-on hater because my views are apparently no different than the likes of Navaros.

I don't see where he said any of that nor is he throwing out names of those involved or uninvolved in this particular debate but one. I'm sorry but I think you completely misunderstood what he said. His commens are on how we debate each other, not on what we're neccassarily debating about.

 

[Anwar]

Because stj appears to be of the opinion that there's no valid criticism that can be made of Voyager

Utter nonsense, plenty of criticism can be made. But VOY does have a somewhat better reason for poor writing compared to the other shows (well, it and ENT are about equal). But even then it still can be criticized. Just not to some crazy extent because then it's just bashing.