Star Trek: Voyager? More Like Bar Dreck: Dowager!
For some reason Star Trek: Voyager does not have the same fandom popularity as Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Could it possibly be because it has the first female captain? Or that has a large focus on female characters? Or that it has the most diverse cast? WHO KNOWS, because it's certainly not because it sucks. In
( Read more... )
I would say that there's probably a few reasons for that. One is the fact that Voyager seemed to set up this great premise, lone starship stranded across the galaxy without resources manned by two crews at conflict thrown together, and then proceeded to basically ignore it for its entire run. The Maquis were in Starfleet uniforms by the end of the pilot, and the ship seemed to operate just fine most of the time, always producing new weapons and shuttles whenever needed.
They made token nods at this stuff, but mostly treated the ship as it was just another Starfleet crew out on an extended mission exploring the galaxy. Waste of a premise.
Another issue would be the static nature of the characters, with the exception of the Doctor and Seven of Nine. Look at the characters at, say, the end of the first season and compare them to where they ended up, and there's really very little difference in, say, Tuvok or Kim or Chakotay. You would think a show that had characters stuck together on a ship for seven years would be primarily interested in exploring those characters and how they developed, but this wasn't the case with Voyager, IMO.
There are other things, like the inconsistent way they wrote Janeway, but those are more obvious if you've seen the entire show.
If you're interested in the opinion of two well-known writers who worked on the show, Ron Moore and Bryan Fuller, you may find some of their thoughts illuminating.
Here's the link to a very long interview with Ron Moore: http://www.lcarscom.net/rdm1000118.htm
One quote from Moore I very much agree with:
"VOYAGER doesn’t really believe in anything. The show doesn’t have a point of view that I can discern. It doesn’t have anything really to say. I truly believe it simply is just wandering around the galaxy. It doesn’t even really believe in its own central premise, which is to me its greatest flaw."
Bryan Fuller did a podcast where he talked about his Trek experience: http://nerdist.com/nerdist-writers-panel-129-bryan-fuller/
One interesting tidbit from Fuller from that inteview:
"And on Deep Space Nine, Ira Behr was a very visionary showrunner. So when the executive producer Rick Berman would be like "I don't like that idea" he'd be like "I don't care. This is what we're doing and this is why we're doing it." Where on Voyager we had so many great ideas for that show that were thrown out, and then it was just sort of like okay, it's fait accompli, the idea's dead, and I was like "Ira would have fought for that shit." So on Voyager, toward the end, I was getting a little frustrated with how non-human everybody was. Because I'm like "They're facing the Borg, they're gonna be sitting in their own stool." There's no kind of reality to the human emotion of it. And that grew very frustrating for me because I didn't know how to write it, I didn't know how to write just purely technologically or informationally."
Reply
One is the fact that Voyager seemed to set up this great premise, lone starship stranded across the galaxy without resources manned by two crews at conflict thrown together, and then proceeded to basically ignore it for its entire run. The Maquis were in Starfleet uniforms by the end of the pilot, and the ship seemed to operate just fine most of the time, always producing new weapons and shuttles whenever needed.
They made token nods at this stuff, but mostly treated the ship as it was just another Starfleet crew out on an extended mission exploring the galaxy. Waste of a premise.
This is totally fair, especially the fact that they seemed to always have enough resources. And they definitely could have done more with the Maquis vs. Starfleet conflict.
Another issue would be the static nature of the characters, with the exception of the Doctor and Seven of Nine. Look at the characters at, say, the end of the first season and compare them to where they ended up, and there's really very little difference in, say, Tuvok or Kim or Chakotay. You would think a show that had characters stuck together on a ship for seven years would be primarily interested in exploring those characters and how they developed, but this wasn't the case with Voyager, IMO.
I agree that some of the characters were underdeveloped for sure, but I think you could say the same for TOS or TNG.
There are other things, like the inconsistent way they wrote Janeway, but those are more obvious if you've seen the entire show.
I think what it comes down to is since I watched a compressed version of the series, I could appreciate what the show actually did instead of spending years comparing it to the show I wanted it to be.
If you're interested in the opinion of two well-known writers who worked on the show, Ron Moore and Bryan Fuller, you may find some of their thoughts illuminating.
Oh man, that Ron Moore interview sure is something! And I agree with a lot of his points, especially about Seven's damn costume. And, ha, I never really thought about the wasted resources keeping the damn holodeck on but he has a point there too. I guess I was able to look past all that. I would have liked to see the show he wanted, but I also enjoyed the show it was.
Reply
Leave a comment