Was Janeway -that- bad?

[stitch626]

If the writers had bothered to care she (along with most the other crew) could have been amazing characters. But, aside from the Doctor, the writers didn't do their job... well.

[Lazar]

VOY was just a mountain of lost potential.

[Mithrandir]

Well, I have to agree with stitch626 (and others): With a bit more consistency in writing Mulgrew had had the potential to make a great, amazing captain. I always liked her performance.

IMO, the problem was, that the writers wanted to make her "more like Kirk" at the beginning of Season 3 (I think Jeri Taylor said so). They shouldn't have done this, they should have made her "more like Janeway" (so she was a bit like Janeway in some episodes and Kirk in others).
But it was about then when the writers of Star Trek only tried to recycle old concepts again and again when creating caracters. It started with Voyager and ruined lots of Enterprise (Seven - T'Pol / Kirk,McCoy,Spock - Archer, Tucker, T'Pol). Also about then quite developed characters regressed in developement (most notably: Data - he had been so much further in his quest for humanity in the series than in the movies!).

And, like Lazar said: Lots and lots of lost potential!

[Monroe]

I totally agree. I noticed that too even as a kid. When VOY first came out as a 6th grader I put Tuvok and Spock together and Doctor and Data together figuring they wanted the best of TOS and TNG. If I realized this as a kid you can bet it was pretty obvious.

[Mikey]

Hell, that's just the path of least resistance. VOY depended on the setting and theme - lost in the GQ - to create enough separation, and didn't bother adding its own character and identity through writing.

That's not just a B&B problem. The first time I saw "Stargate SG-1," I immediately thought: "Tough but wise older commander, check; driven and insanely capable female character, check; black guy to act as the muscle, check." This adherence to formulaism is an old standby in commercial TV, and unfortunatley even more so in SF.

[Tyyr]

Hmm, that's a good point. Definitely need to look for ways to break the mold in a lot of these things. Though Trek is pretty awful about reusing character concepts.

[Monroe]

That's not just a B&B problem. The first time I saw "Stargate SG-1," I immediately thought: "Tough but wise older commander, check; driven and insanely capable female character, check; black guy to act as the muscle, check." This adherence to formulaism is an old standby in commercial TV, and unfortunatley even more so in SF.

Sad but true. Look at virtually every citcom:

Fat husband
Hot wife too good for him
Genius child usually female
Child who gets into trouble usually male
Crazy neighbor

Morals showing women as superior.
Morals showing a nuclear family as superior.


And then you can go into more detail with each episode having a structured plot that holds true from the Simpsons to Family Matters to Step by Step to King of Queens.

[Sionnach Glic]

That's not just a B&B problem. The first time I saw "Stargate SG-1," I immediately thought: "Tough but wise older commander, check; driven and insanely capable female character, check; black guy to act as the muscle, check." This adherence to formulaism is an old standby in commercial TV, and unfortunatley even more so in SF.

Let's not forget the "geeky and akward yet genius scientist".

Yeah, a lot of shows use a very predictable formula. A few manage to do it well (such as SG-1), but the majority just suck.

[Mikey]

Oh, right. I forgot about Jackson.

Anyway, I guess the point is that such limitations/formulaism is far from limited to 'Trek, or VOY specifically. You could find similar archetypes in BSG, nBSG, B5, etc., etc. The difference is execution. SG-1, for example - in my VERY limited experience of it - has managed to keep chopping that same block of wood, yet make a universe which is complete and interesting, even with the obvious sci-fi holes it has. Have we ever heard how Gou'ald staff weapons work, other than "they use a weird mineral, and shoot energy?" I don't think so, but it somehow doesn't detract from the milieu at all. O'Neill (for example) may be a hackneyed archetype, but he's consistent and sympathetic.

[Tsukiyumi]

...O'Neill (for example) may be a hackneyed archetype, but he's consistent and sympathetic.

And hilarious.

[Reliant121]

Thats one of the reason I love Stargate. It isn't overly technobabblish.

[Monroe]

Thats one of the reason I love Stargate. It isn't overly technobabblish.

And the stuff that is has a loose basis in real world physics. Blackholes that affect the flow of time for example.

[Teaos]

Yeah stuff just happened there, they never bother to explain it.

[Sionnach Glic]

And that's how it should be done. The show's about the characters, not the technology.

[Tyyr]

I don't have a problem with giving at least a bit of an explanation of the tech, if it's consistent within itself, and they don't get stupid obsessive with it.