Why the hatred for Voyager?

[Eminence]

Malcom said:

Whether or not someone was on this forum while Voyager aired is irrelevant to arguments they might make about the shows, it is relevant to discussions about the nature of criticism of the show on this board in the past. Neither you [03] nor misskim86 [06] were here in that time period and could not know what it was like on the board.

That is logical my friend.

He's right. I was here at the time (under a different name), at it was pretty hectic. There was a LOT of hate for Voyager at the time, but then again, a lot of people also loved it. I loved Voyager when it first aired (although end of season 6 and most of season 7 was kinda eh sometimes), then didn't watch it for years because I couldn't stand it, and now, I really like it again. I noticed that with DS9, I couldn't rewatch the episodes after a while because I always knew what would come next (I suppose such is the danger of a more heavily serialized show than episodic -- the suspense of "What's coming next" wanes off in serialized shows after multiple viewings cause you already know); whereas with Voyager, it's still enjoyable because it's good, lighthearted, nonrepetitive fun. I guess Voyager got the last laugh in that sense!

 

[Orac Zen]

misskim86 said:
THEN we get VOY which is a step BACK to TNG.

It's been explained a number of times in this thread (and others) that UPN - the network on which Voyager was the flagship show - insisted that the show be more like TNG. The hands of the producers were tied. They were unable to do many of the things they wanted to do with the show, things which you and others claim would have made the series "better". Your response to this fact was to make a flippant (and irrelevant) comment about weapons of mass destruction. If you're going to just ignore the actual reason why something turned out the way it did and continue to harp on the consequences - which, incidentally, many fans of Voyager don't disagree with - that's your prerogative. But it doesn't make for particularly interesting discussion, and extraordinarily arrogant generalisations like this

Infact it is impossible for someone born and raised in the western hemispheres cultural ethnicity to dislike DS9 once they seen all of it from start to finish.

do nothing whatsoever to advance your argument – whatever it is.

Caprica Six said:
...it's childish. If someone is new in the forum don't try and shut them up because they haven't taken Voyager 101: Introduction to the Voyager forum history

As someone who saw this forum at its absolute worst I agree that people need to leave the past in the past, move the hell on from those days and not assume that everyone who posts a negative opinion about Voyager is trying to troll the forum. However, it's not helpful to completely ignore what people are saying about the reasons Voyager wasn't all it could have been. It's not helpful to suggest that people who don't like [show] are in some way deficient or if they just watch the whole thing they'll somehow change their minds. It's not helpful to suggest - as it has been in this thread - that fans of Voyager aren't capable of appreciating some aspects of other shows. And fans of certain other shows are just as defensive about said shows and take just as great offence to negative remarks – however innocuous – about them as some people in here do about Voyager. Excessive defensiveness about a TV show isn't just confined to Voyager fans.

 

[Eminence]

I've been observing this thread for a couple days now and hadn't really weighed in but here's my two cents.

First of all, misskim86's assertion that her opinions on Voyager or ENT should somehow be taken as a sort of gospel is ridiculous, exclusionary, and dare I say it...UNStarTrek. Anybody who disagrees just doesn't understand the nature of what people want right? PLEASE. It is an opinion, and only your opinion. I know lots of people who like Voyager, in fact I think more people liked Voyager than DS9 or ENT, as VOY had the highest ratings of either show.

Then, the notion that somehow Voyager represents a de-evolution in Star Trek also doesn't hold up. Voyager was 1) a ship travelling thru the Delta Quadrant; and so by that very premise, it was going to be meeting aliens, interacting with them, and then moving on. We got enough more indepth exploration of an alien species where it was needed, and then the ship set sail and went on, as there was still much of the Delta Quadrant left to explore. 2)The ship, and by extension, the show was about maintaining Federation principles against incredible odds. That in and of itself is a sign of Trek's evolution--because Trek had never been challenged in that sense, to try and maintain itself against adversity. DS9 had a little bit of it, with the Dominion war etc, but then they had the rest of the Federation flanking them. Voyager, on the other hand, was one ship against a quarter of the galaxy, and yet they were still maintaining who they were. THAT was the challenge, maintaining that ideal. For this same reason, whenever I hear that Voyager should be more like BSG, I wonder if people actually understood what Voyager was about! Again, the ship should look and feel like the Federation because that's what they were trying to stay true to (if you don't believe me, watch the end of 'Alliances').

And as far as the notion that Star Trek had to compete with shows like SATC, etc--those are entirely different genres, and I doubt that SATC took many viewers away from ANY ST series.

 

[misskim86]

Eminence I'm watching VOY and I get absolutely no feeling what so ever about what you describe. If VOY had been all the "Voyager vs the delta quadrant" as you describe it, the show would have been a lot better and probably not seen as a step back to TNG, but I'm truly sorry, really most of the episodes I've viewed so far (I'm in the middle of season 4) makes no notion of the whole voyager against the delta quadrant bla bla, the show could might aswell have been Star Trek: Enterprise C.

And yeah UPN was responsible but I don't get what it is you want to debate about UPN.

Star Trek didn't directly compete with shows like Sopranos but when viewers saw how awesome those arced shows were there was nothing in ENT with the alien of the week press reset button that made them want to tune in.

Star Trek was always edgy up until Voyager, then it regressed.

I'm starting to sense that a lot of what VOY so bad was that it SHOULD have been like how it was described: "Voyager on its way back home all alone in the Delta quadrant. But UPN made it "Voyager feeling right at home in the Delta quadrant ,exploring"

 

[Eminence]

You know MissKim you repeating the same statements over and over again in your messages really doesn't add nothing new to your arguments. How many times have you said "step back to TNG" and "ridge forehead alien of the week" now? And how many people have brought the house down on it?

Just because you repeat it a million times ain't gonna make it any more true. And if you can't see what was Voyager was about (heck, I've even cited an episode!), then you're probably just not paying enough attention when watching. And that my dear, is not something I can help you with.

All I can say is....walk with the Prophets, I know I will.

 

[misskim86]

Well you repeating your messages will hardly add anything new either will it? If I as a new viewer doesn't get any sort of feeling that Voyager is really in a dire situation there is clearly something wrong with the show. It's not like I set out to dislike the show, I love Star Trek in all its forms.

 

[Orac Zen]

misskim86, "debating" UPN isn't the point. The point is that its interference is the primary reason Voyager is - as you claim - "Star Trek: Enterprise C". The reason it seems, in your opinion, a "step back to TNG" is because UPN made it so. That's the reality of the matter. No amount of talk about how much "better" serialised shows are, or how much "better" some other shows are - shows whose producers don't / didn't have their hands tied by network bigwigs more interested in ratings and the bottom line than letting people get on with making the show they want(ed) to make - will change that.

We (dis)like what we (dis)like. You claim to "hate" Voyager and keep telling us how "bad" you believe it to be, and that's one thing. You're entitled to that opinion and no one here is trying to force you to like the show. It's when you ignore or dismiss the reason it turned out as it did, or start generalising and presenting opinions as facts that people's feathers are likely to get a bit ruffled.

 

[misskim86]

Alright Orac I gotta back track some stuff though. I don't hate VOY for it's story or so, it's pretty good for what it is, I hate what it meant for the Star Trek franchise as a whole.

And I'm sorry for all generalizing, my whole comment that people born in the west has to like DS9 was more or less a tongue in cheek joke.

It's too bad UPN did what it did then, is there any known facts for what the producers had initially planned for the show?

 

[Eminence]

misskim86 said:
Well you repeating your messages will hardly add anything new either will it? If I as a new viewer doesn't get any sort of feeling that Voyager is really in a dire situation there is clearly something wrong with the show. It's not like I set out to dislike the show, I love Star Trek in all its forms.

Uh, how many times have I posted in this thread? And I do believe each time that I did, I had an ORIGINAL thought. Please tell me where I've been repetitive LOL....

 

[Eminence]

misskim86 said:
Alright Orac I gotta back track some stuff though. I don't hate VOY for it's story or so, it's pretty good for what it is, I hate what it meant for the Star Trek franchise as a whole.

And I'm sorry for all generalizing, my whole comment that people born in the west has to like DS9 was more or less a tongue in cheek joke.

It's too bad UPN did what it did then, is there any known facts for what the producers had initially planned for the show?

Ok I'll calm down too now then. I mean, it would be very UnStarfleet of me if I didn't, and well, none of us can have that!

If you really wanna blame something, blame ENT. *ducks swinging ENT fans* That show really hit the final nail!

 

[Guy Gardener]

Nah. Ent was born 6 feet under. Maybe they could have dug there way out? but once they adopted the story telling arcs they alienated they fans that loved the bottle necked single servings, far to late for the once burnt arc lover to give that story a try.

If only Mayweather had taken his shirt off once an episode.

 

[KitchenWitch]

misskim86 said:
It's too bad UPN did what it did then,

Too bad perhaps from a creative angle, but from the financial angle--which is the studio's bottom line--a brilliant move.

As wonderful as all those serialized shows you mention are, they do not perform well in syndication or reruns, for the same reasons Eminence mentioned in his post.

Episodic dramas--regardless of genre--do much better than serialized dramas in syndication. And that is where low-rated genre shows make up for the low ratings in the initial run.

 

[misskim86]

KitchenWitch said:

misskim86 said:
It's too bad UPN did what it did then,

Too bad perhaps from a creative angle, but from the financial angle--which is the studio's bottom line--a brilliant move.

As wonderful as all those serialized shows you mention are, they do not perform well in syndication or reruns, for the same reasons Eminence mentioned in his post.

Episodic dramas--regardless of genre--do much better than serialized dramas in syndication. And that is where low-rated genre shows make up for the low ratings in the initial run.

As far as I know any Trek show has been dead and buried for several years whereas shows like 24 and Prison Break are thriving. I'd venture to guess that an executive rather want a highly popular show to do slightly less good in syndication than nothing at all

 

[KitchenWitch]

misskim86 said:

KitchenWitch said:

misskim86 said:
It's too bad UPN did what it did then,

Too bad perhaps from a creative angle, but from the financial angle--which is the studio's bottom line--a brilliant move.

As wonderful as all those serialized shows you mention are, they do not perform well in syndication or reruns, for the same reasons Eminence mentioned in his post.

Episodic dramas--regardless of genre--do much better than serialized dramas in syndication. And that is where low-rated genre shows make up for the low ratings in the initial run.

As far as I know any Trek show has been dead and buried for several years whereas shows like 24 and Prison Break are thriving. I'd venture to guess that an executive rather want a highly popular show to do slightly less good in syndication than nothing at all

The drop in ratings for serialized shows begins with initial reruns. At ER's peak, it was in the top 5 weekly for first-run episodes. Reruns were a small fraction of the viewers that watched in first run. This is true serialized shows across the boards.

Voyager ran in syndication on UPN for years. DS9 did not.

 

[Guy Gardener]

You are joking?

In the simplest terms perhaps 24 and prison break are arc shows, but they're just as bottle necked as Next generation, it's just the entire seasons is squashed into a tiny calendar that each distinct and unrelated dilemma and issue the crops up suddenly but almost never heard of again becomes the entire focus for the 40 minutes after some exposition of the stock plot for the season.

I'm being harsh, but these examples you've given are story telling for the general pleb masses who've had a hard day at work and want an excuse not to beat their spouse and children for an hour before they get drunk... Which is mostly true about everything and especially sports.

 

[misskim86]

No I'm not joking.

Are you joking?

 

[Guy Gardener]

A little.

 

[Malcom]

Eminence said:
He's right. I was here at the time (under a different name), at it was pretty hectic. There was a LOT of hate for Voyager at the time, but then again, a lot of people also loved it. I loved Voyager when it first aired (although end of season 6 and most of season 7 was kinda eh sometimes), then didn't watch it for years because I couldn't stand it, and now, I really like it again. I noticed that with DS9, I couldn't rewatch the episodes after a while because I always knew what would come next (I suppose such is the danger of a more heavily serialized show than episodic -- the suspense of "What's coming next" wanes off in serialized shows after multiple viewings cause you already know); whereas with Voyager, it's still enjoyable because it's good, lighthearted, nonrepetitive fun. I guess Voyager got the last laugh in that sense!

That's interesting. I didn't like Voyager at all when I first tried to watch it in season one and two. Came back for season 4 and loved it. But, like you, found season 7 maddening at times. The quality really varies. When it's good, it's really good, and when it's bad, it's really bad.

 

[TedShatner10]

I really liked Voyager's fourth and fifth seasons, but it really felt like it was deflating in it's final Season Seven and I've never properly seen "Endgame" (though ditto for the last episodes of DS9 and ENT, despite seeing many if not most episodes from those two shows). And "hate" seems to be far too strong a word for a run of the mill sci-fi series like Voyager, and I wonder why Brannon Braga cops such irrational dislike as well, since he could do some instances of good writing even in Voyager and Enterprise, even though he certainly stayed in Star Trek for far too long.

 

[Eminence]

Oh I absolutely adored Voyager when it was first on the air...I remember I would rush home from wherever I was to watch it when it was on LOL!

I truly felt for the crew, how lonely etc it must be for them, and found it noble that they were trying to stay true to who they were, where they came from, against all the odds, temptations, and even necessities that may have led them to abandon those ideals.

Such an exploration, to me was a major strength of Voyager--it showed the human spirit's ability to weather challenges and not compromise who or what it was. I would even propose that, at times, Voyager was as much an exploration of the Delta Quadrant as it was an exploration of humanity's ability to withstand such challenges. And Voyager did a great job of that exploration through most of its seasons.

But, I guess I had different expectations for Season Seven though. The quest to get home should have really ramped up at that point, and it would have been nice if more of season seven was spent on getting them home (rather than just the final episode, which, btw, with it's temporal stuff was a little bullshit). Endgame, IMO, is a travesty in and of itself--as Future Janeway shouldn't have come back with her time travel stuff (trying to minimize how much I get into "spoiler" category), which gave it a "do over" feel to it. If I ever run into B&B I would just tell them that the Voyager crew I adored would have gotten it in one, thank you very much.

Instead, I would have loved if maybe the last several episodes had built up to them getting home--I mean c'mon people, it's been 7 years of foreplay, and now we're supposed to be satisified with a minuteman??--but I know that by that point, a lot of the people who had worked on Voyager had moved over to ENT, and how to end Voyager wasn't really a priority anymore for the studios. Most of season 7 in fact suffered this logistical quandary, and it showed in Season 7.

After that, I didn't really watch Voyager, although I did read the relaunch books like I read the DS9 relaunch, and that helped a lot of the damage Season 7 did (thank you Christie Golden!). And it's only in last couple of years that I've been rewatching it, and you know, I find that I'm enjoying it again as much I once did. Voyager withstood the greatest test of all, the test of time.