[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by Bester

DS9 was the last time that Trek was truly bold, daring to be different. Since then all's we've had is formulaic cr*p for the most part (barring the new Trek movie).

Far Beyond the Stars, The Visitor, In the Pale Moonlight, Sacrifice of Angels, The Way of the Warrior, Trials & Tribble-ations, Children of Time, etc, etc, etc all easily stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the very best that Star Trek has to offer.

They are the best that Star Trek has to offer.

[Big Boy Barry]

The best episode of Voyager was "Equinox" because it showed how much more interesting a TV show called "Star Trek: Equinox" would have been, rather than "Star Trek: Voyager"

[Margo Channing]

Are any of the star trek books recognized as cannon? Because there is one (buggered if i can remember the name) which showed what happened after they arrived back in the alpha quadrant.

[Bester]

You're thinking of Homecoming.

The Farther Shore is set after that as well.

[MrGiles2]

I really enjoyed Voyager. I cannot believe many of the negative comments on here about Voyager and her crew. I thought it was a great series right throughout.

I still watch them occasionally on DVD since having bought the full set a few years back.

[Tassium]

Basically there was no moral core to Voyager. No principles.

This was because a person who can create such a thing is rare and it certainly wasn't present in the people who were in charge, Rick Berman and so forth. (Gene Roddenbury was a sort of religious leader in one sense.)

So it was like a computer had been given all the externals of past Star Trek and produced a generic version. It only really worked because people had Star Trek TOS and TNG in mind while watching it.

It's like watching Jaws 2. It works because the original film is in peoples awareness.

[Muzer]

Originally Posted by Margo Channing

Are any of the star trek books recognized as cannon? Because there is one (buggered if i can remember the name) which showed what happened after they arrived back in the alpha quadrant.

I don't think so - I think some people try to justify that one of the prequels to the Abrams film (I think it's a comic) is canon, but that's only based on some obscure references in interviews, which contradict other obscure references in interviews.

[clonmult]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

The first time through I thought that voyager was pretty bad, apart from the odd decent episodes. My main issues were the same as everyone else:

Janeway's actions made no sense and she seemed to completely lack the strength of commitment to federation principles that the other captains had.

The 'reset' button being pushed after every episode.

Extremely annoying characters and promising ones like Chakotay being underdeveloped.

Overuse of Borg.

Messing about too much with trek universe (they managed to 'invented' 2 different types of transwarp speed by themselves despite the fact the ship was in pieces every other week).

However . . . . .on subsequent viewings it has improved a bit in my eyes. I find Nelix and Harry less annoying. Janeway does have some redeeming features and there are a number of very good episodes. As someone mentioned, quite a fair amount of Star Trek is in fact poor (probably about 30% of episodes) and I would say that this does add to the franchise.

Basically, i'm happier that Voyager exists than if it didn't. However it should have been far far better.

Good summary.

Back in "the day", I tended to enjoy DS9, thought TNG was okay but generally a yawn fest. For some reason, I never got into watching Voyager. As I've got a ticket to the Star Trek London later this year, figured I best brush up, and watch Voyager and Enterprise.

Voyager is definitely mixed. Borg are definitely way too regular, the series doesn't tend to hold together as a coherent story (watching it back to back over the last month or so, I'm about half way through the 5th series) ... and Chakotay is definitely underused.

It just doesn't flow, just a bunch of individual episodes that generally have to stand on their own.

What has surprised me is how good Enterprise was - from reviews I thought it had been panned, and people made out that it got into its stride by the 3rd season. If anything its the other way round for me - the first two seasons were excellent, a good introduction to the beginnings of earths exploration of space, first contact situations being worked out on the fly, and some pretty sensible arcs to hold it all together.

[CD93]

Originally Posted by clonmult

What has surprised me is how good Enterprise was - from reviews I thought it had been panned, and people made out that it got into its stride by the 3rd season. If anything its the other way round for me - the first two seasons were excellent, a good introduction to the beginnings of earths exploration of space, first contact situations being worked out on the fly, and some pretty sensible arcs to hold it all together.

Enterprise was cut short, IMO. Season 3 also served as a reminder of what Voyager's Year of Hell could have been like if they went with the original plan.

The Xindi arc also remains some of Trek's best work. Annoyed the hell out of me how procedural Star Trek wanted to be.

[DariaM]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

They are the best that Star Trek has to offer.

... only if the Star Trek movie could have aspired to be formulatic SNAFU, but sadly, the Production Team screwed up with the Timeline contrivance.

[starsailor]

Originally Posted by clonmult

Good summary.

Back in "the day", I tended to enjoy DS9, thought TNG was okay but generally a yawn fest. For some reason, I never got into watching Voyager. As I've got a ticket to the Star Trek London later this year, figured I best brush up, and watch Voyager and Enterprise.

Voyager is definitely mixed. Borg are definitely way too regular, the series doesn't tend to hold together as a coherent story (watching it back to back over the last month or so, I'm about half way through the 5th series) ... and Chakotay is definitely underused.

It just doesn't flow, just a bunch of individual episodes that generally have to stand on their own.

What has surprised me is how good Enterprise was - from reviews I thought it had been panned, and people made out that it got into its stride by the 3rd season. If anything its the other way round for me - the first two seasons were excellent, a good introduction to the beginnings of earths exploration of space, first contact situations being worked out on the fly, and some pretty sensible arcs to hold it all together.

Problem is 'Enterprise' (remember it ditched the Star Trek monikker to start), was only appealling to die hard trekkers to start off with, as interested in the entire franchise was wanning, and the proceeded to create this entire section of history which was just shoe-horned into what people though orginially happened. Creating the need for so much ret-conning and dodgy explanations about why things are.

In addition as much as I like Scott Bakula in Quantum Leap, he was awful in Enterprise. With all the gravitas of a startled rabbit.

[Bester]

Originally Posted by Tassium

Basically there was no moral core to Voyager. No principles.

This was because a person who can create such a thing is rare and it certainly wasn't present in the people who were in charge, Rick Berman and so forth. (Gene Roddenbury was a sort of religious leader in one sense.)

So it was like a computer had been given all the externals of past Star Trek and produced a generic version. It only really worked because people had Star Trek TOS and TNG in mind while watching it.

It's like watching Jaws 2. It works because the original film is in peoples awareness.

As much as Berman likes to take credit for Star Trek's success in the late 80s and 90s, much of the actual credit should go to Mike Piller. Piller took control of TNG's writing team towards the start of the third season and it's widely acknowledged that this is where TNG really took off.

Piller was also instrumental in getting both DS9 and Voyager off the ground before handing the DS9 baton to Ira Behr and leaving Voyager to Berman, Taylor and Biller.

Fortunately for DS9, as well as Behr, they also had Ron Moore, Rene Echevarria, Hans Beimler, Rob Hewitt-Wolfe and Peter Allan Fields, so things were left in safe hands. Unfortunately for Voyager, they had Jeri Taylor, Braga, Biller etc who just weren't in the same league as the DS9 gang or Piller.

Enterprise never had a chance with Berman and Braga heading things up. It was only when Manny Coto came aboard in the third season that things took a turn for the better, with Coto writing many of the show's better episodes like Similitude and Azati Prime. Coto took over control of the show for its final season, and it's widely regarded as being the show's best.

Bottom line - Berman sucks. TNG would have failed if it hadn't been for Mike Piller. DS9 would have failed without Piller and then Behr & co. Voyager did fail after Piller left, and Enterprise only got good once it was taken off Berman (and Braga).

[Big Boy Barry]

The problem with Enterprise is that like Voyager, it betrayed its concept. It was supposed to be a retro-Trek, showing the development of Starfleet and the Federation, but instead it was based mainly on timeline meddling. That kind of stuff can work for a one-off episode like "Yesterday's Enterprise", but not for an entire series.

[Bester]

Originally Posted by starsailor

Problem is 'Enterprise' (remember it ditched the Star Trek monikker to start), was only appealling to die hard trekkers to start off with, as interested in the entire franchise was wanning, and the proceeded to create this entire section of history which was just shoe-horned into what people though orginially happened. Creating the need for so much ret-conning and dodgy explanations about why things are.

It really didn't help that many fans didn't want a prequel series. Worse still was that whilst the timeframe that Enterprise was going to cover would include iconic Trek lore like the Human-Romulan war, and the founding of the Federation, these were largely ditched in favour of a convoluted 'Temporal Cold War' MacGuffin that was there to explain away all the inconsistencies and continuity fook ups.

They really didn't do themselves any favours with Enterprise.

In addition as much as I like Scott Bakula in Quantum Leap, he was awful in Enterprise. With all the gravitas of a startled rabbit.

I have to agree - Bakula was the wrong choice for Enterprise, which surprised me as I initially applauded his casting. Unfortunately, through a combination of poor writing and indifferent acting, he never worked out in the role. To be honest, not many of the cast did work. Phlox, Trip, and possibly T'Pol, but that was about it. Oh, and Porthos, who acted them all offscreen.....

[Muzer]

Enterprise is generally bad. It has the same problems as early Voyager, but to a greater degree, and also has the problems with contrived continuity when they *just had* to introduce known enemies like the Borg. It made no sense, and you felt like these were just some mental patients who had stolen a space ship and were messing about doing whatever the hell they wanted. I mean, obviously there would be less rigour, etc., than in TOS/TNG/etc. but Enterprise is just ridiculous.

Just to remind you - the problems it shared with Voyager (but to a greater extent) were poor character development, captains making very obviously stupid decisions, story arcs and enemies that had no plan and effectively went nowhere in a convoluted and stupid way, and general lack of good drama like moral dilemmas, etc. (though that's probably a good thing, when you look at how things that weren't even moral dilemmas that were taken as such were handled - see Dear Doctor with its mass genocide).

You can tell they're trying a lot harder with season 3; though the Xindi arc isn't my personal cup of tea, it certainly works better than the whole of seasons 1 and 2. However, season 4 is some of the best Trek since DS9 ended, perhaps longer.

[StressMonkey]

Originally Posted by Muzer

Enterprise is generally bad. It has the same problems as early Voyager, but to a greater degree, and also has the problems with contrived continuity when they *just had* to introduce known enemies like the Borg. It made no sense, and you felt like these were just some mental patients who had stolen a space ship and were messing about doing whatever the hell they wanted. I mean, obviously there would be less rigour, etc., than in TOS/TNG/etc. but Enterprise is just ridiculous.

Just to remind you - the problems it shared with Voyager (but to a greater extent) were poor character development, captains making very obviously stupid decisions, story arcs and enemies that had no plan and effectively went nowhere in a convoluted and stupid way, and general lack of good drama like moral dilemmas, etc. (though that's probably a good thing, when you look at how things that weren't even moral dilemmas that were taken as such were handled - see Dear Doctor with its mass genocide).You can tell they're trying a lot harder with season 3; though the Xindi arc isn't my personal cup of tea, it certainly works better than the whole of seasons 1 and 2. However, season 4 is some of the best Trek since DS9 ended, perhaps longer.

And where there was a moral dilema, like Voyager's Tuvix, they take the selfish, immoral route. See also the episode where B'ellana has that alien stuck on her or where they send back a convict to his death who only killed due to a brain disorder that the Doctor cured.

Nasty bunch the Voyager lot. Wouldn't want to run into them in a dark nebula.

[palmbeach]

I have watched all star treks, all episodes, and admittidly the first few episodes of voyager, Janeways voice grated, Even so Voyager is far the best of all the various incantations of the theme. I agree that `seven` was a much needed addittion, and the last episode was as much of an anticlimax as the end of Lost.
I have re-watched Original, TNG and voyager more than twice, and still enjoy them all. Except DS9. I sold my boxed set after one watch, it was poor.

[RebelScum]

Is it wrong of me to like it when a Voyager fan says they didn't like DS9? It's like their complementing DS9.

[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by clonmult

What has surprised me is how good Enterprise was - from reviews I thought it had been panned, and people made out that it got into its stride by the 3rd season. If anything its the other way round for me - the first two seasons were excellent, a good introduction to the beginnings of earths exploration of space, first contact situations being worked out on the fly, and some pretty sensible arcs to hold it all together.

That's interesting. I watched the first couple of episodes when they first aired and wasn't impressed so didn't bother catching the rest. However I saw a few of the later episodes on T4 so rented the last 2 seasons. I thought that the plots were good but found the characters worse than even voyager's; though maybe that's because I didn't catch the proceeding character development.

[Bester]

Originally Posted by RebelScum

Is it wrong of me to like it when a Voyager fan says they didn't like DS9? It's like their complementing DS9.

I always imagine that the majority of people who love Voyager simply know no better, in that they probably grew up with the show, and didn't see TOS, TNG or DS9, or came to them later.

For me it was always such an anti-climax. TOS - brilliant, TNG - brilliant, DS9 - brilliant. Voyager......meh.

[Bester]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

That's interesting. I watched the first couple of episodes when they first aired and wasn't impressed so didn't bother catching the rest. However I saw a few of the later episodes on T4 so rented the last 2 seasons. I thought that the plots were good but found the characters worse than even voyager's; though maybe that's because I didn't catch the proceeding character development.

Character development.......?

[Muzer]

There IS no character development in ENT

[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by Muzer

There IS no character development in ENT

That's what i assumed but then i never have it a chance.

[farscape]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

That's interesting. I watched the first couple of episodes when they first aired and wasn't impressed so didn't bother catching the rest. However I saw a few of the later episodes on T4 so rented the last 2 seasons. I thought that the plots were good but found the characters worse than even voyager's; though maybe that's because I didn't catch the proceeding character development.

I did like Enterprise. At first it did improve marginaly on Voyager in terms of continuity, we got lip service to reparing damage to the ship from episodes prior and crew recovering from injuries etc and there was a sense that they were trying to do better rather than just relying on fan loyalty,

That's not to say it didn't have problems. Being a prequel it had a lot of cutesy nods to Next Gen. You could almost imagine the actors winking at the camera when delivering certain lines to show "see that's the phrase Prime Directive comes from" And sadly they couldn't resist using aliens the Ferengi and Borg etc

The third season was an overhaul to improve ratings. It was darkly stylised and was a season long arc to find the Xindi, as others mentioned it was like a season long version of Voyager's Year Of Hell. It was a rather hamfisted post 9/11 allegory and you could probably boil the arc down to 10 - 15 episodes as a lot of episodes had nothing to do with the Xindi arc beyond mentioning it but I do applaud the effort. It's pretty good in places.

The final season is another overhaul and is manned by Manny Coto. The first few episodes kind of cleared the gunk from the previous seasons left of the field cliffhanger but beyond that it becomes a true prequel to the Star Trek: The Original Series using a lot of elements from that series as well as from the movies and other Trek series. It's got a lot of three episode arcs which are very good and if nothing else in the show interests you these should.

On the subject of character development, no one other than the trio of Archer, Trip and T'pol get any meaningful development and in T'Pol's case I'm not sure it's for the better. That being said I think the others actors made the most of what they were given and Doctor Phlox and Reed in particular do stand out and change over time. To lesser degree so does Hoshi who I generaly liked and Mayweather may as well not have been a main cast member, after the first two seasons his role could easily have been filled by any extra.

[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by farscape

I did like Enterprise. At first it did improve marginaly on Voyager in terms of continuity, we got lip service to reparing damage to the ship from episodes prior and crew recovering from injuries etc and there was a sense that they were trying to do better rather than just relying on fan loyalty,

That's not to say it didn't have problems. Being a prequel it had a lot of cutesy nods to Next Gen. You could almost imagine the actors winking at the camera when delivering certain lines to show "see that's the phrase Prime Directive comes from" And sadly they couldn't resist using aliens the Ferengi and Borg etc

The third season was an overhaul to improve ratings. It was darkly stylised and was a season long arc to find the Xindi, as others mentioned it was like a season long version of Voyager's Year Of Hell. It was a rather hamfisted post 9/11 allegory and you could probably boil the arc down to 10 - 15 episodes as a lot of episodes had nothing to do with the Xindi arc beyond mentioning it but I do applaud the effort. It's pretty good in places.

The final season is another overhaul and is manned by Manny Coto. The first few episodes kind of cleared the gunk from the previous seasons left of the field cliffhanger but beyond that it becomes a true prequel to the Star Trek: The Original Series using a lot of elements from that series as well as from the movies and other Trek series. It's got a lot of three episode arcs which are very good and if nothing else in the show interests you these should.

On the subject of character development, no one other than the trio of Archer, Trip and T'pol get any meaningful development and in T'Pol's case I'm not sure it's for the better. That being said I think the others actors made the most of what they were given and Doctor Phlox and Reed in particular do stand out and change over time. To lesser degree so does Hoshi who I generaly liked and Mayweather may as well not have been a main cast member, after the first two seasons his role could easily have been filled by any extra.

When you consider the sheer amount of Star Trek that had already been produced by the time Enterprise came about it's not too surprising that they struggled to make it fresh or original. However I just found the characters so disappointing, they seemed like such non-entities. The general quality of Voyager's characters were fairly bad but I think at least the Doctor, Tuvok, and Paris and B'elanna could have worked as part of a better ensemble.

I also think that Enterprise and, to a lesser extent, Voyager got hit by changing attitudes to tv. The general jump in quality and use of story arcs in early 00s made even DS9 look formulaic.