I'm glad I've got your approval.
Why Voyager was a Disappointment
- Thread starter Borough 31
- Start date
I'm glad I've got your approval.
The Enterprise was a lot bigger than VOY, so it was reasonable we wouldn't see these characters in every episode. VOY tried to do the same thing but the audience wouldn't stop complaining they weren't see more Secondaries even when it would make no sense to see these Secondaries.
Uh, we're arguing over them not following prior continuity. All being in the DQ with no connection to anything did was rob them of a vital resource and give nothing in return to work with.
Then why are there complaints that they didn't reference everything that ever happened in previous episodes?
It's mainly double standard. TNG could have their Secondaries not show up all the time and no one cared. VOY didn't want to shove their Secondaries into every single story and got complaints.
Like I said, double standard.
And did anyone like those episodes? No? Well there's your answer.
That's what happens when you stupidly overpower a bland enemy that much.
They'd have to stay in one place for more than one episode to do that. And we saw how the audience reacted if they ever stayed in one place more than one episode.
If it wasn't rushed into production and had been given a plot that was sustainable, then yes. An audience that wasn't hyper-critical of it would've helped a lot too.
There is a way to form connections and not stay in the same place. There are ways to form a world while having the story feel like it is moving on.
The problem for VOY, no matter what, is that it put itself in to a box. It was confined by what TNG had done, and what the powers that be thought they could do with it. Audience expectations (whatever that means) or no, it was hamstrung by the box it was placed in, much in the way early TNG was placed in the Roddenberry box.
Also, as for secondary characters, there is little expectation of them to be in every episode. But, when writers forget about them for seasons, and then bring one back just to kill them? No, that is just poor writing.
How? No other "Lost Ship" show I've seen has done that without staying in the same spot for lengthy periods or having Central cast members have a connection to their surroundings.
It was put in a box against its will.
And if they aren't in every episode, then the complaint (when they're killed off) is just that they weren't around enough in the first place.
It is still a valid complaint. Michael Jonas was a well done secondary character, and so was Carey, until they forgot about him-then they killed him when they remembered him. Sorry, I see that as a problem.
VOY confined itself to its own box. It may have started out against its will but little was done to change that fact. It had its moments but they were few and far between.
First of all, we had Neelix and Kes, who connected the crew to the Delta Quadrant. Secondly, we had Seven of Nine, who didn't have to be a human rescued from the Collective, but a species assimilated by the Borg and trying to return home themselves. In that way, you have both connections and mutual goals. I can list off several ways or possibilities for working a show like VOY to create connections, but that really isn't the purpose of this thread.
Unfortunately, Neelix was not utilized to his fullest possible benefit by the creators. He certainly could have been a guide, taking the crew through more dangerous paths, and risky gambits, rather than the common bumbling that happened.
Again, not a full use of the resources and ideas that were already present and could be a strength of the show. VOY could have been a really strong show, and worked out its problems, like TNG did, like DS9 did, like the TOS movies did, etc. Even Abrams movies, despite much detraction and criticism, has had success.
It's all in how you treat challenges.
No it's not double standards as you point out due to a larger crew TNG could easily have secondary characters not show up as much and as TNG was set within the UFP it could have crew transfers. VOY was stripped of those no access to replacements and a smaller crew. It is not unreasonable for the audiance to consider those points and expect to see certain secondary more often due to the very fact that there is a smaller crew and no access to repalcements.
As for continuity take the often mentioned example of no backup for the EMH. Whilst "Living Witness" was one of VOY better episodes I will critise it for ignoring something that formed part of the plot some 8 episodes earlier. And if they could create a backup once they could do it again.
Or what about the no way to replace photon torpdeos? If they can't replace torpedeos then they won't be able to replace something more complex like a shuttlecraft. The line implies that the replicator can't make one or the componets to make them.
These are things which the producers of the show brought front and centre to our attention. It's not wrong for the audiance to call them on things they brought to our attention and later ignored.
Audiances don't start out being critical (for the most part).
If they didn't want to have to include those guys in every story between their intro and their death, I don't really see it as a problem.
I just don't see what could have been done to escape the box.
Yes, and the audience thought it was dumb that THEY were willing to travel on the ship as well. So I don't know what would've satisfied them.
I can too. Mainly just having the Caretaker's Array be holding lots of random DQ aliens when it blows and they choose to join VOY as the second crew instead of the Maquis. But this would've taken time and planning the show didn't get.
Then the problem would've been explaining why the crew kept him around if he kept getting them in danger deliberately.
Sure, if they'd been given more freedom and time to plot out something beyond "Gilligan's Island in Space".
Exactly, they'd have to show them in every episode unless they could contrive some reason not to show them. And even then the audience would still complain they weren't showing them even if it made no sense to show them.
They made one, lost it, and due to lack of resources couldn't make another one. Easy as that.
What made no sense was them saying they couldn't make more torpedoes in the first place. It's not just the limitations, it was that the limitations they chose made little sense.
As has been pointed out they didn't have to recurring characters in every episodes they just need to use them as and when required, instead of creating yet another new character when an existing one could have been used. Take Carey for example it's almost as if they thought they had killed him only to remember he was still alive and years after his last appearence bring him back only to kill him. Are you arguing that there was no episode inbtween that he couldn't have been used instead of them creating a new character?
They had plenty of resources to create not one but two delta flyers.
Replicators aren't magic, we can easily say they can't make latinum, or gold pressed latinum would be worthless if you could just replicate it. So that's at least one thing that they can't replicate, so we have an in-unoiverse example of a replicator limitation. So the line about having no way to replace torpedeos can be justified as a limitation of replicator technology.
All that had to do was to change the line to something along the lines of "And It'll be difficult to replace them" or something similiar. But they choose to bring that limitation to our attention, so it's not an unfair critisim. Simply put they should never have put it in, but they did and they have to live with the consequences of it. It could perhaps have been excused if it was a brand new tech, but by this time we had had seven years of TNG and two of DSN the tech was established they should've have known what it couldn't and could do by now.
They had plenty of resources to create not one but two delta flyers.
Replicators aren't magic, we can easily say they can't make latinum, or gold pressed latinum would be worthless if you could just replicate it. So that's at least one thing that they can't replicate, so we have an in-unoiverse example of a replicator limitation. So the line about having no way to replace torpedeos can be justified as a limitation of replicator technology.
All that had to do was to change the line to something along the lines of "And It'll be difficult to replace them" or something similiar. But they choose to bring that limitation to our attention, so it's not an unfair critisim. Simply put they should never have put it in, but they did and they have to live with the consequences of it. It could perhaps have been excused if it was a brand new tech, but by this time we had had seven years of TNG and two of DSN the tech was established they should've have known what it couldn't and could do by now.
But, those limits were self-imposed. All the BTS details I have read indicate that the producers went in eyes wide open with regards to the limits they had in place. The limits did not surprise them or were not imposed by an outside force. The details of the concept of VOY were there from the get-go. So, if those limits are ignored, then, as an audience member, I am within my right to expect them to respect those limits, or give me a reason they don't respect them. If you blatantly break your own rules, I'm going to need a reason. This is true in any fictional work-Trek gets no exception here.
I would have been more content if the plotting moved more from serialized to actions having consequences, and not just a reset at the end of the episode. And there are several examples where VOY did it, and did it well. Just not consistently.
Also, just because fans cannot conceive of ways to form connections and plots for a show does not mean that we let the writers and producers off the hook. That is their job. Audience members should not be blamed for a show's failings in the writing, characters and plot, and creative staff should not be given a pass for mediocrity because they placed themselves in a box.
At some point you were a child who didn't understand the limits and mechanics of tv, and then you turned 17?
Some of us watched TNG as a child and didn't know it was shit, and some of us watched Voyager as children and didn't know it was shit. Adults get angry when they realize that their childhoods were all lies.
Some of us watched TNG as a child and didn't know it was shit, and some of us watched Voyager as children and didn't know it was shit. Adults get angry when they realize that their childhoods were all lies.
@Anwar
Now you're making straw man arguments.
Nobody is mad that they didn't 'Shove secondaries into every episode'. They are criticizing the show for not including them at all, in any episode.
Nobody is complaining that 'They don't reference everything ever established in previous episodes'. They are complaining that they don't reference anything established in previous episodes.
Nobody is saying Voyager should have had every aspect of every episode be a direct continuation of things previously established. We are saying that things previously established that have direct, specific relevance to the current story being told should have been referenced, and that the show would have had much more emotional impact with a strong recurring secondary cast.
You have not made a single argument that addresses the criticisms people are actually making. You're arguing against your own made up criticisms you wish people were making and you're making ad hominem suggestions that anyone who disagrees with you is just complaining for the sake of complaining.
'Voyager is smaller than the Ent-D', also a ridiculous argument, as a 15 deck ship is easily big enough to stow away unneeded secondary characters in science lab, cargo bays or a hundred other places. We only saw deck 15 in one episode.
Now you're making straw man arguments.
Nobody is mad that they didn't 'Shove secondaries into every episode'. They are criticizing the show for not including them at all, in any episode.
Nobody is complaining that 'They don't reference everything ever established in previous episodes'. They are complaining that they don't reference anything established in previous episodes.
Nobody is saying Voyager should have had every aspect of every episode be a direct continuation of things previously established. We are saying that things previously established that have direct, specific relevance to the current story being told should have been referenced, and that the show would have had much more emotional impact with a strong recurring secondary cast.
You have not made a single argument that addresses the criticisms people are actually making. You're arguing against your own made up criticisms you wish people were making and you're making ad hominem suggestions that anyone who disagrees with you is just complaining for the sake of complaining.
'Voyager is smaller than the Ent-D', also a ridiculous argument, as a 15 deck ship is easily big enough to stow away unneeded secondary characters in science lab, cargo bays or a hundred other places. We only saw deck 15 in one episode.
Just over 90 charcters were named. There's a list some where. Which means that there was 60 characters who were not named "yet".
In basics we saw everyone.
Possibly in Demon we saw every one as well?
In basics we saw everyone.
Possibly in Demon we saw every one as well?
Last edited:
Truth +1.
You asked
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/VOY_recurring_characters
Intersting it says a character called Ayala made 122 apperances, in case you are wondering whom that is
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ayala
I think it's probably more about perceptions.
As kids we are, on the whole, far more willing to open our arms and try anything. And enjoy it unconditionally.
I know from personal experience that, sometimes, looking back on television shows that I once adored with an open heart in my youth with the cynicism of my adult self, has resulted in my realization not so much that those shows were shit, but simply that they weren't as 100% perfect as my rose tinted memories make them out to be.
TNG and VOY, regrettably, fall into that bracket comfortably.
I was a kid when they were on the air, and in both cases I never once questioned them. As an adult however, I can enjoy them both just as much, if not arguably more so now I can now understand the themes of certain storylines better than I once could... but also not without seeing the flaws and errors that my child mind simply couldn't.
It's not so much about the shows having been shit. It's more that our abilities to comprehend and analyse, things we only truly develop as an adult, cause us to see the flaws where once we could not.
No series can ever fully stand up to the scrutiny of adulthood.
Puns. The lowest form of wit.
Similar threads
