Oh, I thought he was talking specifically about them movie franchise. Never truly understood the hate for Voyager and Enterprise. Of course it's not as good as DS9, but there were very good episodes in both series. Enterprise was canceled just as it seemed to have found its feet.
Enterprise season 4 was miles better than seasons 1-3, but it was too little too late. Voyager had very, very few redeeming qualities. I can barely recall a very good episode of Voyager.
7 of 9 or 9 of 10 as I use to call her. Seriously though, the premise was an interesting one. Being flung across the galaxy into the delta quadrant. The execution via story and cast yielded mixed results. I really liked Enterprise, but not on initial viewing. I think Enterprise was sunk to a over saturation of star trek programs for ten or more years and it after Voyager.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I found Janeway to be a great captain, and the doctor is one of the better Star Trek characters. His interactions with Seven in the later seasons were often times quite good. I will agree that some of the other Trek series had more compelling senior officers.
Oh I personally liked almost all the Trek series. But I believe the post Rodenberry era ended under Berman(?) when Nemesis failed miserably.
I actually liked Voyager more than TNG (never watched DS9, but I have it set to go as my next "project") because there was no Data es machina written into every other episode. It rang more true, and the science/problem solving in it was more compelling. I guess I could see how it rubbed "pure" Trekkers the wrong way, but I guess I'm not of that cut. I really liked Chakotay, btw. He's twice the first officer that bloated yes-man Riker was.
Definitely true about Enterprise (which became Star Trek: Enterprise halfway into its run), as I wrote about in more detail here (I just noticed that I posted that exactly five years ago yesterday ). As for Star Trek: Voyager: it actually started out better than both TNG and DS9 started out, but whereas TNG and DS9 both trudged along for a bit before really taking off (TNG some time very early in its third season; DS9 some time very late in its second season), Voyager only gradually improved over time but never really took off. -G
Earlier this fall, my wife and I watched the whole run. Season one, when we bagged it during the original run, was very uneven, but season two was pretty good, and three and four produced a few episodes that have to be considered any time you talk about the best episodes out of all the 700+ in the franchise. But I think you're right: it was a victim of there already being enough Star Trek. Voyager had some weak episodes, but in all, I thought it was okay, too. DS9, IMO is really good, and the last couple of seasons which,were basically one long arc covering the war with The Dominion from the next quadrant, was just head and shoulders above the rest of the franchise. That show really holds up from pilot to conclusion really well.
Wow, I can't believe how hard you people are on Voyager. I thought it was a really strong series. Janeway was an excellent captain, and Seven of Nine and the Doctor were outstanding enough to carry the show. The series had its troubles at first, but once it hit a stride it produced some very compelling episodes.
I liked it too. But why are we talking about Voyager when we should be talking about how bad Star Trek IX was? I'm really not done with that.
Chako was alright, I had more problems with the likes of Paris and Torres. Tom Paris might be the most bland character they ever created on any Trek show.
I must have a weakness for sentient AIs, both the Doctor and the James Moriarty hologram are amongst my absolute favorite characters in the entire universe.
I have to agree, the Doctor was probably the best character on Voyager and a top 10 character in the Trek universe. When he made the appearance in ST: First Contact it was the highlight of all cameos. Zimmerman was even great on his eps of DS9.
It wasn't a real Star Trek movie, it was just a sci-fi action movie where the characters just happened to have the same names as the original Trek characters.
You mean because there was action? Let's be real, when was the last GOOD Star Trek movie? It's been a long time.
Really? I found the personalities to be quite similar. I found Kirk and Bones to be how I'd imagine them coming out of the academy. Taking into account the changes to Kirk's upbringing I thought they did a pretty good job. I was highly skeptical of a reboot, but I felt that they did a pretty good job with the characters and the story. The increase in action didn't hurt it either. It was miles better than tripe like ST V, Generations and Insurrection.
The best detail, in my opinion, was young Scotty always being hungry. Given James Doohan's waistline later in his career, that was a nice touch.
I'd agree with this. Sure: it's true that if you took the characters from the series as the starting points then there are probably other renditions of their youth that would have made just as much sense, but what they gave us in the Abrams movie clearly took the original characters into account. I thought the "Bones" backstory was pretty fun, actually. On the other hand, I liked the smaller scale/lower concept storylines (the ones that seem to grow out of the ship as a community) from the series better than the ones where the fate of the universe hung in the balance. The Abrams movie was disappointing in that regard, although many of the enjoyable points in the film were character driven. That said, the other Star Trek movies were just as high concept and the only one that was really good was the Wrath of Khan.
I didn't mind what Abrams did with the characters in his first movie. While I wasn't in love with the idea of a Trek "reboot" which discarded the real timeline/continuity, in execution it turned out to be fun. There were enough nods and homages to TOS to amuse me and make me feel cared about as a fan. Also the casting of Zachary Quinto was inspired. Nevertheless, I'm skeptical about this sequel. I don't object to JJ Abrams because it's in fashion to do so. I object to JJ Abrams because he's responsible for such schlock as Cloverfield, Mission Impossible 3, Super 8 and, most concerning of all, Lost. He is the king of gaping plot holes and unfinished ideas disguised as mystery or ambiguity. I HATE that. The new poster does not look promising. With the fleet apparently "detonated," how can it possibly be Star Trek? There is no Star Trek without Starfleet. My worry from the beginning was that Abrams would use the Star Trek name and the characters' names to make his own movie that has nothing to do with the Star Trek ethos. Action is fine; action is great! Most Star Trek fans will say they want more action in their Trek. The risk is that you lose the whole concept of the Federation and what it stands for, the Enterprise's mission, and the crew's relationships. If you lose those things then it's not really Star Trek, it's just a generic action picture.
The JJ Abrams Star Trek was not a bad Star Trek movie. It was an anti-Star Trek movie in the guise of a Star Trek movie. It's not the action, but the causes and circumstances of the action. I detail my position here: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/star-trek-into-darkness.1979158/#post-26892642
I can't wait for this new one. It looks better than the first. And the first Star Trek is better than all of the previous movies and TV shows.