AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,684 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I read where Deep Space 9 just ended, and believe or not the DVD's are already being release, the whole series at once almost too.


BUT , no where, on any forum for months, can I find anything about why Star Trek Voyager is not out on DVD. The only thing I did read is that apparently one of the directors or producers is not well liked, but surely that can't be.


The special effects were so nice.


HELP!!! anyone know??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Paramount are releasing them in timeline order, after TNG comes DS9, 7 seasons in 2003, then in 2004 they will release all 7 seasons of Voyager, same as the previous series. So relax, it's cool.

I prefer Voyager over all the other Star Trek series (havent seen Enterprise though) because it was my introduction to the Trekkies world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,684 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thats outrageous, I thought deep space ended after voyager, and the demand for voyager is HUGE, I read about it CONSTANTLY.


DS9 is here now, I read that repeatedly, I heard rumor that a few of season 1 dvd's are have already been sold unofficially.


Waiting 2 years plus or more for all of voyager is very weird.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
Voyager did poorly in the "ratings". All that crap you read about it doing well is hype put out by the producers & the studio. Same goes for "Enterprise". DS9 and Next Generation did much better in the ratings because way more thought and better writing went into those shows. Me personally I liked the first & second season of Voyager then it went downhill. I Liked the first few shows of Enterprise then it turned into the last few seasons of Voyager. pRick Berman is going to run "Star Trek" into the ground.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,729 Posts
Voyager was definately the weakest of all the Star Trek franchises (though admittedly I've only seen 2 episodes of Enterprise).


Star Trek > TNG > DS9 > Voyager


My $0.02 :p


- Rick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Quote:
Thats outrageous, I thought deep space ended after voyager,
DS9 started before Voyager started and ended before Voyager ended, although the two series did overlap for a time.


I think the origional question of the thread has been pretty well answered, so we might as well ramble about Star Trek for a bit.


[ramble mode on]

Deep Space 9

DS9 is an interesting series because it shows a visible transformation from the plot-driven TNG style of trek to the new action-hour style. The first seasons of DS9 had very TNG style plots that focused on story and were relatively light on action compared to later seasons. There were still some good plots in later seasons but the special effects and action definately came to the fore. DS9 did well in the ratings, especially in later seasons. I think people wanted a change from the peace-loving beatnik Trek of TNG and early-DS9 and were digging the old-style action and great special effects that late-DS9 was serving up. I look forward to picking DS9 up on DVD, the first couple seasons especially. Even if DS9 isn't the best trek out there, it's pretty good and you don't see it aired much anymore.

Voyager

Then Voyager came along... I think there were a number of reasons why many people, including myself, didn't like this series as much.
  • Racial Development: TOS, TNG and DS9 developed rival alien cultures in great detail. Vulcans, Klingons, Cardassians, and the Dominion most notably. The nomadic concept of the Voyager did not allow for this. Rival races were impractical to develop beyond the "freak of the week". They made a good attempt with the Kazon(sp?) but ultimately had to admit defeat and leave them behind. They managed to work the Borg into a lot of episodes, but never really developed them beyond what TNG did. They even ripped off the queen borg from "First Contact".
  • Character Development: The characters from Voyager were unforgivably static compared to those of TNG or even DS9. Janeway and most of the other characters were functionally the same characters in the last episode as they were in the first.
  • Plots: The plots were very formulaic. Come up with a situation that might make for good sci-fi in the hands of more talented writers. Insert irrational, stubborn, violent, and unrealistically stupid aliens. Have Janeway give her "I don't like bullies" speach. Set up a nice special effects climax with some (techspeak) pasted in by consultants long after the script was written. Solve everything with the deflector dish and set course for home. I'm not saying that TNG, DS9 or TOS didn't have very formulaic episodes. They did. The difference is that Voyager had very formulaic *seasons*.
  • 36 of DDD... er... 7of9: (for many she would be a plus I think) Sex appeal has always been a part of Star Trek. TOS was a true product of the 60's with more scantily clad (and randy) females than any trek series since. TNG had no compunctions about levering a good looking woman into spandex. DS9 continued the tradition of good looking women in tight uniforms, but did a credible job of making the uniforms fit the setting. However, I have yet to meet anyone who can explain 7of9's stilletto heals... The main problem with 7of9 was that her more salient attributes were relied upon too heavily to carry the show. It was probably a mistake to have her play the stiff. The two other notable Trek stiffs (Spock and Data. Let's not even discuss Tuvok.) were both played by very talented actors. An emotionless (or emotion-light) character is very hard to play because an emotionless performance, while perhaps more faithful to the character concept, is too difficult for an audience to relate to. A credible stiff requires a subtle and nuanced performance, not an emotionless one, to be palatable. 7of9 never manged anything beyond "cold fish" with an undertone of slightly constipated PMS. Not surprisingly the actress did a lot better when plots called for her character to show some obvious emotion. She was certainly competent, but not up to playing a stiff. She could have been good if her character had developed beyond the stiff stage as quickly as possible. If you liked 7of9 then you probably liked Voyager. If you didn't like her, you were pretty much hooped because she got more screen-time than any other character after they brought her in to replace poor Kes, whose salient features weren't big enough apparantly.
Enterprise

Now there is Enterprise... I was very stoked about this series at first. It had (and still has) a lot of latent potential. The concept is indeed excellent. However, the show has some serious problems. Scott Bakula played the meek and confused boyscout very well throughout Quantum Leap. (a very decent show) However, he is now playing a meek and confused captain. It's a change I suppose, but just doesn't seem to be working. T'Pol is functionally 7of9 with a wig and ear prosthetics. I will say that Trip, Hoshi, and perhaps Flox are very well done. The plots aren't quite as banal as those Voyager tried to pass off, but suffer from the same fatal flaw.


Voyager and Enterprise both seem to be centered around the special effects and action. It's almost like road construction. They've got a nice big budget that will be cut if they don't use it. As a result, instead of letting the plot determine what action/effects are necessary, they write plots specifically to use up the available S/FX budget. Perhaps somebody in charge has gotten the idea that Enterprise will flop if they don't keep the action/effects in the foreground. My feeling is that Enterprise and the whole Trek franchise is doomed anyways unless they start focusing on plots before effects. For a time audiences were willing to be wowed by special effects and to hell with plot. That time is over. Effects are good, but only in support of good stories. Ironically, Enterprise would probably be a better show if its budget were slashed in half!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
628 Posts
Ill say this for Voyager. It captured the feeling of the original series. If only it was written better it would have been a much bigger success.


I like the underdog, lost in space type feel it has. The whole "were learning this stuff for the first time" thing like the original.


I always felt that TNG and DS9 were nothing more than soap operas in space. TNG came off as a holier than thou, check your fire, we're pacifists now, bore fest. I say Kirk had it right. "youre strange, I dont understand you, therefore I must kill you". ( right after I have sex with your green women)


TNG plots always seemed to pit Star Fleet as a World Power, so to speak. Even though the whole idea of Star Trek is that we are by no means the first race to space. It wasnt until the Borg episodes that you really saw the gap in technology between two races that should have existed all along.


The original is still my favorite, and Voyager is a distant second even with its flaws. I cant even bother myself to watch TNG or DS9, and the new Enterprise show is just unremarkable.


Side note. At least Voyager was smart enough to take the best looking female on the ship and keep her looking good. The new Enterprise show takes a good looking actress and gives her a butch haircut and bitchy attitude and ruins an obvious viewer draw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Having sat through every foolish episode from the Trek world ever written I still want to know why the writers insist on wrapping every story up in a neat little 50 minute package?


In the end, these series have done everything except to "go bodily (I mean boldly) where no man (one) has ever gone before. "

Enterprise to its credit has tried to put a bit more effort into some type of a continuing storyline.


Another downside is that every series to be released on dvd will all be in a 4:3 format until we finally come to Enterprise...that's an enormous amount of non-widescreen material.


I'va always enjoyed Star Trek stories, but these shows should have all been so much more.


Howie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,835 Posts
Wasn't there a 2 parter in TOS (The Menagerie)? And TNG had at least one 2 season "cliffhanger" with Loqutas (sp?) and the Borg. I agree that most episodes are 50 minute packages.


It seems that more character development and more simultaneous stories that overlap and last several episodes would help revitalize the series.


Of course, isn't that a soap opera approach? 8(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Quote:
Having sat through every foolish episode from the Trek world ever written I still want to know why the writers insist on wrapping every story up in a neat little 50 minute package?
The writers do what the producers tell them to do. I believe the producers were afraid that a mini-series style would limit viewership because people who missed a couple episodes would feel out of the loop and new viewers would functionally be up the creek without a paddle. The various incarnations of Star Trek are far from being the only TV show that do this.

Quote:
Wasn't there a 2 parter in TOS (The Menagerie)? And TNG had at least one 2 season "cliffhanger" with Loqutas (sp?) and the Borg. I agree that most episodes are 50 minute packages.
The Menagerie was the TOS pilot. The TNG pilot (Encounter at Farpoint) was a 2 hour pilot that was origionally broadcast as one long episode. It was later split into 2 parts so that it could be re-run. Season 1 of TNG did not have a cliffhanger, but every season thereafter did I believe. Season 2/3 was "The Best of Both Worlds" which did feature Picard's transormation into Locutus. The last season ended with a 2 hour episode. There was also the occasional mid-season 2-part episode such as the one where Spock defected to the Romulans in Season 4. (This springs to mind because it's the on the next disc I am watching. :D) DS9 and Voyager had similar structure, although DS9 featured a lot more plot continuity between episodes in the last couple seasons than any other Trek series to date including Voyager or Enterprise.

Quote:
It seems that more character development and more simultaneous stories that overlap and last several episodes would help revitalize the series.
Babylon 5 did this. A lot of anime series also do this. It can make a show very rewarding to watch for regular viewers but can really make it hard to get into a show mid-point. This isn't an issue if you're buying it on DVD, but that's pretty much after the fact as far as the producers are concerned. I doubt the producers of TNG never even thought that there might be a demand for TNG on VHS, let alone DVD. As for Enterprise, I don't think a long stream of dumb plots with lots of action/effects is going to be any better than a bunch of 45 minute shows. Enterprise needs to start getting some good plots before it worries about continuity between episodes.

Quote:
Another downside is that every series to be released on dvd will all be in a 4:3 format until we finally come to Enterprise...that's an enormous amount of non-widescreen material.
What's wrong with 4:3? Casablanca was 4:3. If you watch no old movies and very little TV then I can see how 4:3 shows might bug you a little. Personally, I think a nice high-res source is more important. (TNG is sadly deficient here) If TNG were to be magically reshot, I'd rather see it redone in 35mm. 4:3 than 16mm. anamorphic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,745 Posts
I have been a star trek fan since the original and like to watch all of them. Problem for me has been for watching episodes of "Enterprise" because in my area, they put it on the home shopping channel! Its on a higher UHF analog channel that comes in pretty bad. It was only after I visited the star trek web site that I discovered I could even watch it. By then, I had missed most of the 1st season. You would think somebody could have done better than this for a reasonable size population area of St. Louis, MO. The shows I did get to watch I liked pretty well, so I'm not very happy about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
977 Posts
Babylon 5 is indeed an example of many of the things that the Trek franchise has never accomplished...a running timelime with much better continuity. Farscape is another example...these series both have many well written stories that continue from week to week. The fans know the quality is there, and there really is no problem keeping viewers tuning in each week.

Quote:
What's wrong with 4:3?
There's nothing wrong with it...I simply wish that some of these shows originally existed in a wide format. If I limited myself to no 4:3 material my collection would be sadly lacking.


We now live in an age where repetitiveness has become the norm. We are seeing an endless flow of remakes both in film and in television to the point of adnauseam. Shows like Babylon 5 broke from the norm and so should the Trek franchise if it wants to keep its viewers interested.


Howie
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top