Excessive Criticism of “STAR TREK VOYAGER”

[seldonp38]

EXCESSIVE CRITICISM OF "STAR TREK VOYAGER"

For the past two decades, I have never encountered so much criticism of one particular Star Trek show than I have for the 1995-2001 series, "STAR TREK VOYAGER".

Ironically, I used to buy this negative opinion. Or accept it. One of the reasons I had ignored "STAR TREK VOYAGER" for so many years, because I had assumed that those fans who had deemed it inferior to the other shows in the franchise were right. When my sister found out that the rest of our family was ignoring the show, she fervently suggested that we watch it. This happened when the early Season Five episodes were going through its first run. Well, we did. We watched some of those early Season Five shows. We also watched the previous episodes from Season One to Season Four that were currently in syndication. And guess what? My family became fans of the show.

I am not going to claim that "VOYAGER" was perfect. Yes, it had its flaws. I have even posted a few articles about some of the flaws I had encountered. But I was also able to pick out both major and minor flaws in the other Trek shows at the time - "STAR TREK", "STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION", and "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE" - while still enjoying them. I never really became a big fan of "STAR TREK ENTERPRISE", but there were a good number of episodes that I really enjoyed.

This fervent need to nitpick everything about "STAR TREK VOYAGER" in order to deem it as some kind of pop culture disaster is mind boggling to me. Every time I access an article on the Internet - especially on a Trek message board - about series, the criticism seemed to strike me as unnecessarily excessive . . . and constant. And most of the complaints I have come across are either about some ridiculously minor flaw or how Janeway was a terrible star ship captain. I do not understand this opinion. Janeway made her mistakes. So did the other Trek captains. What made her worse than the others? Her gender? Star Trek shows were not allowed to have women as the leads, or even worse, in the command position?

More importantly, these same fans seem very reluctant to point out the flaws - both minor and major - about the other Trek shows. At least not to this extreme degree. What is going on? If you are going to state that "VOYAGER" was simply the worst show in the Trek franchise, do not expect me to buy this opinion anymore. After seeing the show and the others in the franchise, I really have great difficulty in accepting this view. So what is it? What is the real truth? I guess in the end, these are questions that no one can really answer. After all, art and entertainment are subjective.

Comments

[lindahoyland.livejournal.com]

I loved Voyager.

[beatrice_otter]

A lot of it is exaggerated, and there's quite a bit of misogyny in it (Voyager is, after all, the one with the female captain). And there's a lot of tribalism involved in what "your" Star Trek show is, which always punches up the wankery.

My objection to the series isn't that it was bad or had no potential; but that it (and Enterprise) were the two Trek series with the most WASTED potential. There were so many very interesting things they could have done with that basic premise and that crew, but they usually chose the "safe" choice, the predictable choice, the one I knew they were going to make. There were too many episodes where I got about half-way through and realized, "oh, yeah, I've seen Star Trek episodes with this basic plot four or five times before, and they were all more interesting and original than this one." It's not that they were bad, just ... not very good, either. And then, every so often, they'd try to shake things up and do something "cool" or "edgy" and it usually a) was still something I could predict pretty quickly, and b) was edgy in a way that didn't feel true to the characters and/or the Star Trek universe.

Contrast this with DS9, with which it mostly overlapped, and which managed to be far more original while staying truer to the original spirit of Star Trek (i.e. using space adventures to tell morality tales about current-day life). Again, I don't think Voyager was bad. It wasn't. It just wasn't as interesting to me as TOS, TNG, or DS9, and it was very frustrating because I wanted to love it but I just kept getting bored.

[beatrice_otter]

I do totally agree with you that Voyager gets way more shit than it actually deserves. You get people talking like it was the most horrible thing evar, which it wasn't.

[kerkevik-2014.livejournal.com]

All the shows have flaws, but the show that most wasted it's potential was Voyager.

It had the best cast from the start with only one regular whose character felt devoid of originality; the best Captain; for people forget that Sisko was only a commander at the start; as well as an incredible potential for the telling of stories aboot two crews with vastly divergent beliefs trying to meld themselves into a unity that could get them home, all the while struggling to survive while finding their way home.

All wasted.

That's why I don't rewatch it very much, if at all. Even Enterprise finally achieved something of what it could have been by the end; once all the 'Time War' material was finished with. If only it could have gone without that.

Only DS9 bettered Voyager for minor, or one-shot characters that deserved several reappearances.

kerk

[brtmh.livejournal.com]

For me, the show with the most potential was "STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE". It had the potential to be the best show, thanks to its premise. But I don't think that series ever reached its potential, thanks to the occasional sloppy writing. This became more evident as the series went into the Dominion War story line. It just never really reached it. I think "DEEP SPACE NINE" needed a J. Michael Straczynski. Sure, it had Ronald Moore. But considering how he screwed up "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA" in the end, he was not enough.


That's why I don't rewatch it very much, if at all. Even Enterprise finally achieved something of what it could have been by the end;

Really? What? Aside from a first-rate Mirror Universe episode, I don't know exactly what "ENTERPRISE" had achieved.

[seldonp38.livejournal.com]

It had the best cast from the start with only one regular whose character felt devoid of originality; the best Captain; for people forget that Sisko was only a commander at the start; as well as an incredible potential for the telling of stories aboot two crews with vastly divergent beliefs trying to meld themselves into a unity that could get them home, all the while struggling to survive while finding their way home.

All wasted.


The conflict between the Starfleet and Maquis aspect of the crew more or less played out in Season One and lingered occasionally in Season Two. After the ship had been temporarily captured by Seska and Hirogen, the crew finally operated as one, starting in Season Three.

So, what did you want? Consistent conflict between the Starfleeters and Maquis throughout the series?

You know, the above arguments only solidify my belief that this fan penchant for heavily criticizing "VOYAGER" more than the other shows is basically a reaction to sexism and misogyny. This idea that the premise for "VOYAGER" gave it more potential to be different from the other shows strikes me as a lot of bullshit. For any of the TREK shows . . . including "DEEP SPACE NINE".