Why the hatred for Voyager?

[Nebusj]

kipron said:
I maintain that Voyager was remarkably upfront about what it was (and wasn't). For evidence of this, look no further than the ending of Caretaker.

Oh, c'mon. Caretaker opened with two spacetime anomalies, a long holodeck adventure, the crews being shuttled back and forth while hardheaded and inexplicably hostile aliens who don't wash threaten them, a weird alien disease wiped clean by the holo-doc, a Big Issue that's supposed to be a Prime Directive story that Janeway solves by being right, some explosions, and then sailing off into the closing credits. When during its entire seven-year run did Voyager do any stuff like that?

 

[donners22]

Just looking at the early episodes, there are two major flaws which are more obvious than other series:

- Not just technobabble-heavy episodes, but technobabble which is just bad science (see Threshold, Demon, Parallax...).

- Downright sabotage of characters, like Neelix's selfish and irrational jealousy over Kes, Torres begging for sex, Janeway in Resolutions, etc.


That's the sort of thing that would turn new viewers off very quickly, and mean they miss the show's many high points.

 

[otteaux]

The main reason I didn't enjoy Voyager as much as the other series was casting Kate Mulgrew as the captain. She just didn't do it for me... I didn't like her acting, and ESPECIALLY didn't like her vioce.

 

[donners22]

Looking at the extras on the first season DVD, Mulgrew was better than the original choice. I think she did a nice job with a really tough role of combining both command and a softer touch.

 

[Kegek]

If anyone else wants to see Genevieve Bujold as Captain Nicole Janeway (changing the first name to Kathryn was Mulgrew's idea), click here.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Simply horrible.

 

[Cyclopean]

Holy crap, Bujold is brutal.

WTF were B&B thinking?

 

[Akiraprise]

Once Bujold read some of her technobabble lines this is what she was thinking:

 

[Anwar]

Cyclopean said:
Holy crap, Bujold is brutal.

WTF were B&B thinking?

Jeri Taylor and Michael Piller were the Exec Producers at the time.

And Bujold just didn't like the role at all, not because of the technobabble. She was one of those "Oh God, I'm a serious actress why am I here?" types.

 

[exodus]

Anwar said:

Cyclopean said:
Holy crap, Bujold is brutal.

WTF were B&B thinking?

Jeri Taylor and Michael Piller were the Exec Producers at the time.

And Bujold just didn't like the role at all, not because of the technobabble. She was one of those "Oh God, I'm a serious actress why am I here?" types.

...and where is she now?

 

[misskim86]

I hate Voyager because in my opinion Voyager is what started the slow death of Star Trek.

Star Trek had to evolve like any TV have to, constantly. TNG was great for its time and it is still great, but DS9 brought the franchise one step further, introducing incredible stor arches. DS9 was way ahead of its time, and can be compared to shows that exists today like LOST, Prison Break, 24, rome, etc in terms of big long story arches.

But because of the fact it was ahead of its time the ratings weren't the best, so instead of at least continuing on the same track, they took one step BACK and returned to the old tried TNG practise of a new forehead ridged alien of the week complete with a big juicy reset button.

Then we come to ENT around 2002 and by now the long story arched shows really started to come from channels like HBO, DS9 would probably have fared MUCH better here, but what do they do? Instead of bringing Star Trek up to speed with current TV they just simply continue their ridged alien of the week with a reset button.

I'm sorry what worked in 1989 will not work in 2002.

So anyway, I hate VOY because it was the knife that slowly caused Star Trek to bleed to death

 

[exodus]

Isn't the viewership of LOST, Prison Break & 24 all faltering due to their story archs? If you miss one single episode of any of those shows and you've lost the story completely.

Has everyone forgotten that in most major cities Voyager & DS9 ran neck & neck against each other on opposite networks thus dividing the viewing audience to begin with? Both shows suffered because they were competeing again themselves.

We also have to consider fans of TNG format didn't tune in to watch DS9, not to mention other Trek fans that turned it off because DS9 had no starship. Doesn't anybody remember the complaints: "...but they don't go anywhere!"? Some of the fans that skipped DS9 did tune into Voyager because it did return to a format they were comfortable with.

Voyager was also on during the era of Hercules & Xena, when campy TV was pulling in big ratings and Trek had to compete with those audiences to gain ratings, why else would they need to put a woman in a paint on catsuit to grab viewers? Remember Xena & Seven being on TV Guide as the sexist women in sci-fi? Message!!!

 

[misskim86]

They're not faltering at all. Infact Sopranos was so popular it could have carried on for several more seasons.

 

[exodus]

misskim86 said:
They're not faltering at all. Infact Sopranos was so popular it could have carried on for several more seasons.

Sopranos isn't sci-fi nor was it competition for Trek.

Sopranos was the only show of it's kind on at the time as well. Sopranos also doesn't have the stigma attached to it that Trek does. Not one person is considered a geek for watching it, admit you like Trek and check out the strange looks you get. Besides, ENT. showed violence & sex just like the Sopranos and Trek fans still turned it off.


Trek failed because the fan based wasn't big enough to support 3 shows that overlapped each other(as well as reruns of TNG). Even Trek fans got burnt out on the amount of TRek on at one time.

 

[startrekwatcher]

misskim86 said:
I hate Voyager because in my opinion Voyager is what started the slow death of Star Trek.

I will never understand those who actually "hate" any form of entertainment. I enjoy tv and films but I can't say I ever was invested so much as to actually feel hate-Disappointment? Yes.

DS9 was way ahead of its time

Not really. Story arcs had been part of soaps and certain primetime dramas long before DS9. And really DS9 was no where nearly as serialized as other programs. For the most part beyond the Occupation arc and the Final Chapter, DS9 adopted the X-Files approach of standalones with the occasional big two parter that touched on the mythology.

In fact I experienced a lot of frustration with how the Dominion, the war etc would be left in the background or only peripherally touched upon. Take season six it had some good episodes it had too many weak filler hours.

But because of the fact it was ahead of its time the ratings weren't the best

Actually I would argue a whole host of factors, the least of it being a head of its time, were responsible. Some viewers had their fill of Trek after TOS/TNG, others didn't like the darker elements and felt it wasn't Trek, others simply didn't care for this incarnation for whatever reason.

so instead of at least continuing on the same track, they took one step BACK and returned to the old tried TNG practise of a new forehead ridged alien of the week complete with a big juicy reset button.

I personally don't see anything wrong with episodic tv. I feel it is just as valid as long arcs. I like both actually. But if arcs alone guaranteed success then series like Kidnapped, The Nine, Journeyman, Day Break etc would still be around.

TOS/TNG and a whole host of other tv programs did fine with the episodic format. The problem I would argue wasn't the format but the quality of writing. I think people didn't stop watching VOY because it wasn't arc-based. I think they didn't have an affinity for the characters and the individual stories themselves just weren't engaging. It isn't the format, it is the quality of the writing. Look how many great standalones TNG churned out.

Besides while arcs are far more engaging on average they do suffer somewhat in terms of replay value because that initial excitement that is a large part of their fun isn't there the second or third time around while standalones for me seem to hold up better.

Instead of bringing Star Trek up to speed with current TV they just simply continue their ridged alien of the week with a reset button.

Once again ENT's problem were the characters and the writing. The plots were retreads, there were no interesting twists, the sense of wonder for the most part was absent, it ineffectively exploited its premise.

That isn't to say there weren't interesting standalone on ENT there were, the problem was they were too few and far between. Had there been consistentcy in quality there wouldn't be all this complaining for either VOY or ENT.

And I might add that while ENT's Xindi arc isn't the first season long arc a show has ever done it was the first even before LOST or Heroes that experimented with the style that those series would make their hallmark-a series of unanswered questions, seemingly unconnected threads that are tied together, a series of mysteries.

 

[misskim86]

exodus said:
Sopranos isn't sci-fi nor was it competition for Trek.

Sopranos was the only show of it's kind on at the time as well. Sopranos also doesn't have the stigma attached to it that Trek does. Not one person is considered a geek for watching it, admit you like Trek and check out the strange looks you get. Besides, ENT. showed violence & sex just like the Sopranos and Trek fans still turned it off.


Trek failed because the fan based wasn't big enough to support 3 shows that overlapped each other(as well as reruns of TNG). Even Trek fans got burnt out on the amount of TRek on at one time.

I never said Sopranos was Sci Fi , but it was a huge success and it was a show with big storylines. Weekly shows with huge story arches were still a new concept in 93. .

Ent might have had sex and violence but it was still ridged alien of the week with the reset button

 

[startrekwatcher]

misskim86 said:
Weekly shows with huge story arches WERE a new concept in 93. You can't compare it to a day time soap sorry, it's not the same thing. Trek = once a week, day time soap = every day.

Tell that to Dallas which premiered in the late '70s.

 

[misskim86]

Not really. Story arcs had been part of soaps and certain primetime dramas long before DS9. And really DS9 was no where nearly as serialized as other programs. For the most part beyond the Occupation arc and the Final Chapter, DS9 adopted the X-Files approach of standalones with the occasional big two parter that touched on the mythology.

In fact I experienced a lot of frustration with how the Dominion, the war etc would be left in the background or only peripherally touched upon. Take season six it had some good episodes it had too many weak filler hours. But because of the fact it was ahead of its time the ratings weren't the best

DS9 had the war as a constant backdrop, and Season 6 and 7 were filled with those episodes, and if it wasn't the dominion war it was the Klingon Cardassia war or Bajoran religion. But you're right, they had lot of filler episodes. I would not have minded even more arch episodes but again since DS9 was so ahead of it's time and one of the story arch fore runners of course they won't be as good as the shows that came 10 years later like Lost or Sopranos or Prison break where every show is an arch episode. They still lived off the TNG eras success and Trek's tradition of stand alone episodes. But they were still way ahead of their time with the long story arches, especially for a sci fi show.

I personally don't see anything wrong with episodic tv. I feel it is just as valid as long arcs. I like both actually. But if arcs alone guaranteed success then series like Kidnapped, The Nine, Journeyman, Day Break etc would still be around.

TOS/TNG and a whole host of other tv programs did fine with the episodic format.

You're thinking exactly like Braga and the others.. JUST because something worked in the 80s and 60s(lol) certainly doesn't mean it will work today.

And of course long archs doesn't guarantee success but it sure helps a lot, you're almost forced to think so much more to plan a long arch instead of a 30 min problem solved in 10 mins

Once again ENT's problem were the characters and the writing. The plots were retreads, there were no interesting twists, the sense of wonder for the most part was absent, it ineffectively exploited its premise.

No the problem with ENT was that it was a bad copy of a bad copy of something that worked in the 60s and 80s and doesn't work today.

Only thing I could hear from friends who watched was "this is exactly like tng" and it wasn't in a positive way. While we all love TNG, we have all seen DS9 which was MUCH better, and at the same time shows like 24 has come.. sorry episodic aliens of the week won't cut it anymore.

Once again PEOPLE TODAY have outgrown the alien of the week with a reset button. The large audience today are captured with shows like Prison Break that has huge story arches spanning several seasons.

 

[misskim86]

startrekwatcher said:

misskim86 said:
Weekly shows with huge story arches WERE a new concept in 93. You can't compare it to a day time soap sorry, it's not the same thing. Trek = once a week, day time soap = every day.

Tell that to Dallas which premiered in the late '70s.

Yeah you're right Dallas and the Dynasty were also fore runners.

But to Trek as a whole DS9 was a huge new concept

 

[startrekwatcher]

misskim86 said:
DS9 had the war as a constant backdrop

A backdrop isn't the same thing as it being integrated into the fabric of the story in a significant way whereby it advances the arc's core threads.

Season 6 and 7 were filled with those episodes, and if it wasn't the dominion war it was the Klingon Cardassia war or Bajoran religion.

Season 7 moreso than season six did a better job in staying focused on the arcs mainly due to the urgency of addressibg them before the series ended.

But season six after the Occ arc seemed to float around doing episodes that might have mentioned or touched on the War in a minor way but the bulk of the story was self-contained.

Same went with the Klingon war which really didn't play much of a role in season four beyond the two hour premiere and a few episodes here and there. Its potential was never fully exploited.

But you're right, they had lot of filler episodes. I would not have minded even more arch episodes but again since DS9 was so ahead of it's time and one of the story arch fore runners of course they won't be as good as the shows that came 10 years later like Lost or Sopranos or Prison break where every show is an arch episode.

Well here I think the DS9 writers were hampered by the studios who didn't want the show to be as serialized as it could have been. So I don't necessarily blame Behr or Piller. That was out of their hands.

But to argue that DS9 didn't have a template to look to in serialization is just wrong. DS9 wasn't forging any new ground as far as the style or format. They could easily look to soaps or the other primetime dramas using this format to draw upon. The only part they would have to come up with is the storylines themselves unique to DS9.

You're thinking exactly like Braga and the others.. JUST because something worked in the 80s and 60s(lol) certainly doesn't mean it will work today.

And by the same token just because something worked in the 80s or 60s doesn't mean it won't work today. I'd argue that if a show has an interesting group of characters, solid acting and interesting stories it doesn't matter if the show is serialized or episodic.

Are you telling me that there are not any good episodic programs on tv these days?

No the problem with ENT was that it was a bad copy of a bad copy of something that worked in the 60s and 80s and doesn't work today.

So you're telling me that if ENT or VOY had interesting characters and entertaining episodes you'd wouldn't watch because it wasn't arc-based? Forgive me but that seems a bit limited.

I'd also point out that it wasn't the format ENT was using that failed it was the execution of the format. That'd be like saying just because an arc-based series failed it was due to Lost because it was trying to be a bad copy of it.

Once again PEOPLE TODAY have outgrown the alien of the week with a reset button. The large audience today are captured with shows like Prison Break that has huge story arches spanning several seasons.

Well maybe I'm a relic in the age of the internet but I happen to have enough room in my viewing habits to enjoy both types of formats. I think both have their strengths and weaknesses.

I happen to be someone who watches those very season spanning shows but I still enjoy a standalone.

So I don't quite understand those who say "I'll only watch arc-based series". For that matter I don't understand those that say they'll only watch dark and gritty. Surely people crave variety whether in formats, styles, tones, genres etc.