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!
