# What was the real problem with "Star Trek Voyager"? Acting or writing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 5, 2011, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380 "2011-06-05T07:44:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/121 "2011-06-09T00:09:55Z")
I think you fairly have to say the entire franchise mostly had all the same originality/concept problems discussed here, starting all the way back with the last season of TOS. I’d go further to say that the real reason TNG is remembered at all fondly, and that the other spinoffs even had the chance to exist, is Patrick Stewart’s acting ability. The guy could simply stand on stage reading a phone book for two hours, and he’d keep the audience completely rapt - that voice, his ability to modulate it between firm command presence and soft, emotional scenes are really IMHO what made the show fun to watch. But all the rest of the casts, excepting only maybe Brent Spiner and Robert Picardo, were journeymen actors who looked like hacks by comparison. If, say, Scott Bakula had been cast as Picard, I don’t see the show making it past the “This is crap warmed over” stage with the audience, or being ranked as any better than Voyager or Enterprise. Avery Brooks could almost pull off the air-of-command stuff too, but with his background having been in opera instead of Shakespeare, he just couldn’t do anything else quite as well. Mulgrew and Bakula never came close to learning how to act well enough. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/122 "2011-06-09T02:00:23Z")
Brooks doesn’t have a background in Shakespeare? I saw him do a fantastic Othello. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/123 "2011-06-09T18:13:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I think you fairly have to say the entire franchise mostly had all the same originality/concept problems discussed here, starting all the way back with the last season of TOS. I’d go further to say that the real reason TNG is remembered at all fondly, and that the other spinoffs even had the chance to exist, is Patrick Stewart’s acting ability. The guy could simply stand on stage reading a phone book for two hours, and he’d keep the audience completely rapt - that voice, his ability to modulate it between firm command presence and soft, emotional scenes are really IMHO what made the show fun to watch. But all the rest of the casts, excepting only maybe Brent Spiner and Robert Picardo, were journeymen actors who looked like hacks by comparison. Picardo, of course, was not a NextGen cast member. And loved NextGen as much for Spiner as for Stewart, if not more. I was fond of Dorn as well, and Gates McFadden was the exact right amount of hot. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/124 "2011-06-09T22:39:44Z")
I loved the chemistry between the cast members on TNG; I think that is part of what was wrong with Voyager - there really wasn’t any chemistry between any of the cast members, not even the ones that were supposed to be married. TNG grew to be greater than the sum of its parts, and Voyager never did. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/125 "2011-06-09T22:51:49Z")
Who was married on voyager?? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/126 "2011-06-09T23:00:03Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > I loved the chemistry between the cast members on TNG; I think that is part of what was wrong with Voyager - there really wasn’t any chemistry between any of the cast members, not even the ones that were supposed to be married. TNG grew to be greater than the sum of its parts, and Voyager never did. Agreed, with the caveat that I found the Seven/Doctor relationship to be interesting. The Doctor seemed to have, at one point, a bit of a Pygmalion thing going on for Seven. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/127 "2011-06-09T23:03:06Z")
B’Elanna Torres and Tom Paris were married. Actually, come to think of it, Seven and Chakotay might have had some good chemistry, but they didn’t get together until almost the end, if I remember correctly. The Seven/Doctor relationship was interesting - it’s a testament to Picardo’s acting that I felt so badly for him when his affection for Seven was unrequited. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/128 "2011-06-10T01:48:38Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > B’Elanna Torres and Tom Paris were married. Actually, come to think of it, Seven and Chakotay might have had some good chemistry, but they didn’t get together until almost the end, if I remember correctly. > > The Seven/Doctor relationship was interesting - it’s a testament to Picardo’s acting that I felt so badly for him when his affection for Seven was unrequited. No. Just no. They tacked on the chemistry between Chakotay and Seven at the end. Every fan work split them up. The chemistry was between Seven and the Doctor. And Chakotay and Janeway, although it was clear that nothing was ever going to happen there. As for Torres and Paris, while they did get married, we didn’t see it on the show. We saw some clones do it before we (and they) knew they were clones, and they decided not to show the real thing after that. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/129 "2011-06-10T01:52:53Z")
Oh, and Torres and Paris got together specifically because of the chemistry between them. Seriously. They had no intent of ever settling Tom down like that. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/130 "2011-06-10T19:27:40Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > No. Just no. They tacked on the chemistry between Chakotay and Seven at the end. Every fan work split them up. The chemistry was between Seven and the Doctor. And Chakotay and Janeway, although it was clear that nothing was ever going to happen there. Honestly, the real chemistry was between Janeway & Seven, which, even in the 90s, was even less likely to be explored. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/131 "2011-06-10T19:35:03Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > B’Elanna Torres and Tom Paris were married. Then I’m glad I missed that, or perhaps I repressed it. I want to watch Star Trek, dammit. Not The Real Housewives of the Delta Quadrant. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/132 "2011-06-10T20:35:45Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > As for Torres and Paris, while they did get married, we didn’t see it on the show. We saw some clones do it before we (and they) knew they were clones, and they decided not to show the real thing after that. Do you mean they didn’t show the wedding? I don’t recall whether they did or not, but they did show the marriage, and having a kid. > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Honestly, the real chemistry was between Janeway & Seven, which, even in the 90s, was even less likely to be explored. Agreed on both counts. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2011, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/133 "2011-06-10T23:43:13Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Brooks doesn’t have a background in Shakespeare? I saw him do a fantastic Othello. He never devoted himself to it, like Stewart did. He never got as good at it. **Skald** , I was lumping the whole franchise together. Point being that the rarity of good actors in it made the ordinary ones look bad. ---
**Author:** ![pancakes3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@pancakes3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pancakes3)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/134 "2011-06-16T18:06:39Z")
i’ve been dragging myself through episodes of voyager i think half of the hatred is undue. true the acting is clunky and janeway’s decision-making is the very definition of head-scratching… but by the time 7 of 9 comes onboard in seasons 4, and into season 5, the episodes are quite adequate. the plots stopped being about “ST Voyager” but rather 20th century problems mirrored in 24th century settings. issues about suicide, identity, interpersonal relationships, environment, etc. all start to shine through… so i think in a word: Janeway. not her acting but her character. otherwise, this particular rebooting of ST would have been pleasantly enjoyable. ---
**Author:** ![Agent\_Foxtrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc29f/32.png) [@Agent\_Foxtrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agent_Foxtrot)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/135 "2011-06-17T17:31:34Z")
For me, Voyager lost much of its appeal on the first episode. They tried to push the liberal agenda a little too much by having the never-before-seen black Vulcan, the stereotypically wise Native American, the toned-down-and-approachable female Klingon, and to top it all off, the tough-but-motherly woman in charge. I’m all for fair representation of races and genders on TV, but Voyager seemed like they were overplaying the social tolerance card. The writing was bad. The show was full of potential for new races, new technologies, and new moral conundrums (conundra?). Instead, the new races were annoying, the new technologies sparse, and Janeway’s decisions to the moral conundrums just made me scratch my head (“Seriously, Captain, screw the Prime Directive. You’ve had multiple opportunities to get us home to our families.”). Damage and wear-and-tear to the ship should’ve accumulated as the seasons wore on. By the fifth season, everything from isolinear memory chips to the warp core should have been held together with duct tape and a prayer. The day-to-day frustrations of receiving burned, disgusting, and incorrect food items from the replicator and a slower, worn-down computer would’ve made for great writing. The poor writing couldn’t even be compensated for with good acting, which was stiff and wooden. No one had any fun with their roles. And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, none of the actors had any chemistry. Early on in the shows course, you could tell the actors just going through the motions to get a paycheck. It’s too bad. They could’ve done so much more with it. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/136 "2011-06-17T17:33:59Z")
[QUOTE=Agent Foxtrot] The day-to-day frustrations of receiving incorrect [/QUOTE] Wha… well don’t keep us in suspence! Edit: In before the edit! ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/137 "2011-06-17T17:49:03Z")
> [@Agent\_Foxtrot](#): > > For me, Voyager lost much of its appeal on the first episode. They tried to push the liberal agenda a little too much by having the never-before-seen black Vulcan, the stereotypically wise Native American, the toned-down-and-approachable female Klingon, and to top it all off, the tough-but-motherly woman in charge. I’m all for fair representation of races and genders on TV, but Voyager seemed like they were overplaying the social tolerance card. The technical term for what you wrote above is _utter bullshit_. Let’s start with the black Vulcan thing. I haven’t a list, but I suspect that, prior to _Voyager_, no more than twenty Vulcan characters had appeared in Trek, and no more than six of those (Spock, Sarek, T’Pol, T’Pring, Stonn, and Selar) had names. Admittedly they all had complexions similar to Caucasians – but so what? Assuming Vulcan has a population similar to Earth’s, it’s silly to think that the entire species was in that narrow band. It would be like judging the range of human variation based on the cast of _I Love Lucy_. I won’t argue about Chakotay, because the best thing I can say about him is that he wasn’t Riker. But your characterization of Torres and Janeway seems entirely off base. The former was a long way from “approachable” when first shown; she was short-tempered, rude, and frequently unpleasant to everyone but … um, everyone, in fact. But also hella smart. And Janeway, while somewhat motherly to Kes and Kim, was frequently bitchy (even when written well). And I don’t see a big difference between the way Janeway treated Kes and the way Picard treated Wesley. What you call _pushing the liberal agenda_ I call _realizing that not all human beings are white American males._ > [@](#): > > The writing was bad. The show was full of potential for new races, new technologies, and new moral conundrums (conundra?). Instead, the new races were annoying, the new technologies sparse, and Janeway’s decisions to the moral conundrums just made me scratch my head (“Seriously, Captain, screw the Prime Directive. You’ve had multiple opportunities to get us home to our families.”). > > Damage and wear-and-tear to the ship should’ve accumulated as the seasons wore on. By the fifth season, everything from isolinear memory chips to the warp core should have been held together with duct tape and a prayer. The day-to-day frustrations of receiving burned, disgusting, and incorrect food items from the replicator and a slower, worn-down computer would’ve made for great writing. > > The poor writing couldn’t even be compensated for with good acting, which was stiff and wooden. No one had any fun with their roles. And, as mentioned earlier in this thread, none of the actors had any chemistry. Early on in the shows course, you could tell the actors just going through the motions to get a paycheck. > > It’s too bad. They could’ve done so much more with it. Now all of this I agree with. Not remotely bullshitty. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/138 "2011-06-17T17:56:21Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > The technical term for what you wrote above is _utter bullshit_. I totally agree with this. Displaying racial diversity is “liberal agenda”? In the past, racism resulted in shows that only had white dudes in them. Now that racism is over, we can only show white dudes, because to do otherwise is reverse racism? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/139 "2011-06-17T18:04:16Z")
> [@pancakes3](#): > > i’ve been dragging myself through episodes of voyager i think half of the hatred is undue. true the acting is clunky and janeway’s decision-making is the very definition of head-scratching… but by the time 7 of 9 comes onboard in seasons 4, and into season 5, the episodes are quite adequate. If you have to wait four or five seasons for episodes of a television show to claw its way up to “adequate” then it’s a bad show. I didn’t watch the entire seven year run (I moved out of the house and no longer had the roommates who enjoyed the program) but out of the 4+ seasons I watched there were only a handful of decent episodes. The only episode of Voyager I thought was good was “Think Tank.” ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380/140 "2011-06-17T18:08:46Z")
I don’t know, “tough but motherly” isn’t a horrible description for what they were trying to achieve (when they were trying for something). Sure, I wouldn’t argue that it is no different than Picard. Nurturing is an element of a good leader, trying to bring the best out of his/her subordinates. Nurturing is also an element of being a good parent. But I do agree with you on Torres - she was a hot-headed bitch at first. As for Vulcans, we were lead to believe Vulcans are greenish, and have copper for blood instead of iron. Sure, we only saw a handful, and so projecting a planet’s population from a tiny fraction is iffy. But that’'s a trope in SF. How many aliens are presented as monolithic cultures, typically modeled on one slice of human history? Also note that we saw a handful of Romulans as well, and were told they were Vulcan offshoots, and all of them were pale/greenish too. Even in Next Gen, every single Romulan or Vulcan shown were pale/grayish. And then comes Tuvok. Of course the flipside of that is Klingons. In TOS, the Klingons all had dark, swarthy features. Then comes Next Gen and Worf. But somewhere in Next Gen, we run into some other Klingons (put in the brig), and they are actually caucasian. But they’re about the only ones, as from then on most Klingons are dark skinned again. I personally think they were just trying to do something different than the characters before. We’d had a vulcan before, so how to make this one different? Black. We’d had Captains before, so let’s make this one female. We’ve done Klingons, but what about a Klingon female that is really intelligent? We need a goofy alien - well what could be goofier than Neelix? But someone else can project an agenda upon it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-was-the-real-problem-with-star-trek-voyager-acting-or-writing/584380.md?page=8)