Mr Mystery Guest said:
I loved Star Trek Voyager at the time but when you compare it to Farscape and Firefly it is a boring lumbering elephant looking for a place to die. With the exception of maybe three episodes i realize that it was just middle-of-the-road recycled crap.
You know, I kind of like Voyager, but I feel the same way despite the number of seasons it went on. My problem with it, especially towards he beginning was that they seemed to just recycle Star Trek Tropes again and again, I mean when we have multiple space anomolies, and time travel stories over the space of a few episodes it gets pretty bad, seemed like a lot of filler from people who weren't sure what to do with the entire story arc. I do feel it got better when they started doing stuff with The Borg, Undine, 7 Of 9, etc... simply because it started to have more of a general storyline behind it and more stuff happened. Although I still maintain that as hot as she was, having a Borg serving on the ship, no matter how they wrote it, just never seemed right. It's not that the character was bad, it just never seemed to fit in with the Star Trek concept, and seemed to mostly be overlooked since Jeri became the show's eye candy. It's actually to her credit that she pulled it off as well as she did and made the character popular, because a lot of sex bomb characters like that, even if icy, tend to fall flat from an audience that starts to yawn at the pandering.
I'll also say that I am also a huge Farscape fan, and despite some truely horrible writing and consistincy issues I also liked Andromeda.
Also on a final note I think one of the problems with Star Trek is that it became a victim of it's own production values, and support crews and FX guys that really just did not have a bloody clue what they were doing, not to mention some horrible casting choices when looking at the long-term health of the show.
I think other science fiction shows like "Farscape" stood out because in those shows people actually did stuff, and you got to see some good action. With Star Trek I heard stories about how much it cost them to do the FX for firing phasers and some other things which were bloated for the effects achieved. As a result you had a lot of Trek episodes that were based around doing as little as possible that would cost money, leading to entire episodes which might basically involve The Doctor and a couple of other characters puttering around Sick Bay talking, and while it might get dramatic at the end of the day that's all you wind up watching. Other shows had those episodes, but not as many, because they used their budget better and managed to get FX guys who had a better idea of what they were doing and could get good results without spending a fortune. On the casting angle of things shows like Firefly, Farscape, and even Andromeda understood that science fiction needs action and adventure, they cast people who could do decent choreography. If you look at the credits for some of these shows you'd notice that the guy playing D'argo had stage acting experience including choreography, Bed Browder had some good skills there (which he showed off also in shows like Stargate), Gigi Edgley makes a big deal about being able to do a lot of her own stunts and fight scenes (or did on her fan page), Firefly had Nathan Fillian and the guy who played Jayne (the name eludes me) who knew how to do a good fight scene, Andromeda had the lady playing Beka who came from a serious dance backround if I remember which includes choreography, and Kevin Sorbo came off of a long stint doing Hercules.... when looking at a lot of the Star Trek casts, sometime ask yourself "who here can actually do action?" the answer is pretty much nobody, the most they can do is point a prop and hope an FX guy makes them look good. A lot of the fight scenes involve these painful looking moments where the characters hold their hands together and swing like a club, I guess it's supposed to be a double fisted punch but OMG it looks bad, Sisko (DS-9) and Torres (Voyager) did that a few times when they were "fighting". I think DS-9 did okay eventually though because Nana Visitor seemed to get a grasp for it as time went on, Terry Farrel allegedly had a dance backround which wound up helping when someone realized it (from when she was a model), and Michael Dorn got into character enough where he practiced to pull that kind of stuff off a lot more convincingly for DS-9 (I heard he got pwned so much in TNG because the actor couldn't do good choreography, being hired for looks in the makeup, Jonathan Frakes originally being groomed for the action guy role, but he wound up putting on more than a bit weight pretty quickly).
At any rate, apologies for the rambling, that's just my thoughts. I guess the basic message is that I think the differance between a good Science Fiction show (or one that's entertaining) and one that has a ton of snorefest
episodes is making sure you hire some people who can do action as well as the drama stuff, and make it look fairly
good. William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy being able do pretty good fist fights, helped in a lot of episodes, and meant they din't have to worry about the FX that much, and it prevented things from getting too boring. Nobody fought Klingons bare handed like Kirk. The Farscape cast mostly seemed to have decent physical skills, and in Andromeda they were smart enough to cast a guy (love him or hate him) who had spent years punching out monsters (and other guys) on TV before that, so they knew right off getting some exciting stuff into the show wouldn't be hard with Sorbo around, they wouldn't even need fancy gun effects, need some excitement? find a reason for this rather large and well built guy to kick some dude in a creature suit in the head a few times... deep it's not, but it is entertaining (which could be said for Andromeda in general IMO ). Trek's problem, especially Voyager? They didn't have anyone around that could do that when they needed it.