What would you like them to explore? Disclaimer: I'm a big Star Trek fan, and my favorite series is DS9 because of the moral ambiguity. To me, that episode was about hunting and the moral dilemmas of hunting animals. But it could be about any situation where the prey has accepted their fate, even in a human context because of social acceptance. That episode first gave the perspective of the hunted, their actions and motivations. It opens the question. How would you behave if you were in a class that was hunted? Tosk was skittish, distrustful, secretive and non-assertive except when the Tosk thought it might get in more trouble. Those are probably traits many would adopt if they were hunted. Then it gets revealed why the Tosk was behaving that way. Another class of the aliens was hunting Tosk. That custom was foreign to the crew of DS9 because class and species differences were supposedly eliminated by that time. It's still common in our time though. People hunt animals and marginalize other people. It didn't seem at all odd to me that O'Brien acted against his interest to help Tosk. People sacrifice their self-interest to help animals all the time. They sacrifice even more if the hunted class are people, like the Jewish people in the time of the Holocaust. O'Brien saw Tosk as another person, not a dispensable creature because he wasn't in a culture that saw hunting as socially acceptable. The ethical line that gets drawn when people see other beings as animals or beings like themselves is also an ethical question. It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder why more people didn't hide Jewish people during the Holocaust. It has implications for what happens today. If people can see other people as enough different from themselves, they can care less about them. People of different religions or races can be marginalized or treated differently. The writers of DS9 couldn't explore those moral ambiguities explicitly because once a real life context was given, not in the form of a metaphor, the viewer is likely to revert to their view of the socially accepted view of the moment and not explore the possibility that there might be other ways of looking at things.Their introduction and the whole explanation for the mystery brings about what could be some very interesting moral dilemmas that never get explored. Finally, we have the episode's protagonist act irrationally and against his own self interest to help his new alien friend, everything works out in the end, with the exception of the moral dilemmas being completely ignored.
You’re kind of touching on good points here and I feel you, so I’m gonna talk about what frustrated me about this episode first. Oh, my. There are so many things they could explore I don’t think I could list them all. Here we go though. Is the hunting of non-sentient beings okay? What makes sentient beings different? Where can we draw the line on the values of life and why? If Tosk was raised to be prey, what does that mean about social stratification? If Tosk was raised to be prey, what does that mean about our rights to pursue our own desires versus the desires of society? Tosk felt that his role as prey was a role of honor and that his honor meant more than his own life. What does that say about the expectations society imposes on us? What would have been the right decision for the DS9 crew? To value the wills of a society or to value the rights of a single creature? They’re there for diplomatic reasons, how can they be sure that their overarching mission isn’t going to color their choice? If they decide to value the wills of a society over the rights of a single creature in part because of their diplomatic mission, doesn’t that make them just as oppressive? Fuck. Those are a ton of questions. Those questions are deep as fuck. Yet none of them were adequately addressed let alone resolved. Tosk went free. For them, the hunt continued. For me, I’m sitting here with philosophical blue balls. It seemed odd to me for two reasons. One, O’Brien is a military man. The military has a chain of command and its instilled in its members that the chain of command shouldn’t be broken for a whole slew of reasons that can be boiled down to “The shit that is going on is bigger than you, and if you don’t follow the chain of command, shit can go sideways real quick and the big picture can become jeopardized.” I mean, the dude should know better. In fact, he did know better because he set aside his com-badge. He didn’t want to face Sisko until after the fact because he knew that if he had his com-badge on and Sisko told him to quit fucking about, he’d give back into the chain of command. It was also odd because, man, they’re in the fucking military. Disobeying orders and shit has consequences and the bigger the crime, the harsher the consequences. I will admit that’s personal perspective and O’Brien might be a much braver and nobler person than I am. Me personally? It could be the middle of the night, no traffic, no cops in sight, and I still wouldn’t jaywalk across the street for fear of getting a ticket. That said, he and the DS9 crew know almost nothing about this foreign culture. For all we know, liberating Tosk could be the biggest faux pas ever and now he’s completely fucked up diplomatic relations with an alien species possibly forever. I mean, that’s not the only risk. What if he started an interstellar war and those guys had a fleet so fucking massive that they could basically steamroll the entire Federation like some kind of sci-fi blitzkreig from hell? Then he’d go from “O’Brien the guy who fixes replicators and turbo-lifts” to “O’Brien, the guy who fucked everything up for everyone for fucking ever.” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I mean, I’m completely fine with sci-fi writers exploring things through metaphor. Hell, I’m fine with the fact that metaphors sometimes go over my head. I’m just saying though, if you’re gonna bring up shit for the sake of exploration, fucking explore it. For the record, my favorite episode so far is a draw between the Aphasia Virus and the former rebel conspiring with Klingons to make a bomb because he didn’t like the way the war ended. kleinbl00, I don't want you to feel left out of this discussion. So feel free to chime in with your thoughts.What would you like them to explore?
It didn't seem at all odd to me that O'Brien acted against his interest to help Tosk.
You missed a piece in this. When O'Brien went in for his dressing down with Sisko, O'Brien wondered out loud why the transporter wasn't shut down and isolated to O'Brien's com badge location when Sisko realized that O'Brien and his com badge weren't in the same place. O'Brien could not have carried out his plan without assistance from Sisko. Sisko gave a blustery non-answer. O'Brien wasn't a rogue player here. They all held the same values but were constrained by the Prime Directive. The Prime Directive was the rule that they didn't interfere with other cultures. The Prime Directive is a metaphor of people who go into other cultures and change their cultures for the worse, as was blamed on the Christians in the case of some native cultures. If Sisko knew about and could stop O'Brien in a second but allowed his actions, was Sisko complicit in the crime? I don't think it's very unrealistic If Flynn (a military man) committed an illegal action, and Trump knew about it but allowed it anyway, was Trump complicit in the illegal action? Those are some of the questions the US is now asking. I think those scenarios get played out in a lot of ways. In DS9, there's a recurring theme of exploring the point at which inaction or blindly following orders becomes immoral in itself. Picard struggled with it and so did Sisko. They both took actions or inactions they felt were more moral than blindly following orders. [Edit: removed a possible spoiler] I'll just say here that your questions about what happens when military orders aren't followed is explored a lot. About the hunters, I just saw a post on reddit yesterday about a hunter who was killed when the elephant he killed fell on him. The hunter and anti-hunter discussion turned so vitriolic that the thread had to be shut down due to death threats. It doesn't seem like the hunter question is very settled. There's not much more to explore. I've read that when a piece of fiction stays with you, it's a great piece of fiction. This piece made you think and question. I rarely see that when people watch things. I think that's a great achievement for a piece of fiction.It seemed odd to me for two reasons. One, O’Brien is a military man. The military has a chain of command and its instilled in its members that the chain of command shouldn’t be broken for a whole slew of reasons
Those are a ton of questions. Those questions are deep as fuck. Yet none of them were adequately addressed let alone resolved. Tosk went free. For them, the hunt continued. For me, I’m sitting here with philosophical blue balls.
I did not miss that part. However, 1) O'Brien had no way of knowing that Sisko and the rest of the DS9 team would aid him in his crazy scheme (and I'd like to point out that this is once again illustrated by him taking off his badge) and 2) Sisko, through his position of power and authority, is in better position to smooth things over. That's not to say Sisko's decision was right or wrong, just that Sisko was risking less with his choices than O'Brien was with his choices. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, just because I think of the idea of risking the big picture for a small event is unrealistic behavior. I'm not saying that it's the right decision (and depending on when you talk to me I could go either way and I really hate moral quandries), but I'm just saying that I don't think the whole DS9 crew would be willing to take that risk. Dude. Tell me about it. I love animals. I love nature. I believe conservation efforts are extremely important. That said, I don't think hunting is immoral and I do think there's a lot of validity that the act of hunting contributes to the conservation movement and hunting/fishing for your meat is more moral than factory farmed meat and there's all sorts of caveats to all of those statements and blah, blah, blah. That said, holy shit, it's a contentious issue and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a conversation about it got out of control on a place like Reddit. Damn.You missed a piece in this. When O'Brien went in for his dressing down with Sisko, O'Brien wondered out loud why the transporter wasn't shut down and isolated to O'Brien's com badge location when Sisko realized that O'Brien and his com badge weren't in the same place. O'Brien could not have carried out his plan without assistance from Sisko. Sisko gave a blustery non-answer.
I don't think it's very unrealistic.
About the hunters, I just saw a post on reddit yesterday about a hunter who was killed when the elephant he killed fell on him. The hunter and anti-hunter discussion turned so vitriolic that the thread had to be shut down due to death threats. It doesn't seem like the hunter question is very settled. There's not much more to explore.
I apologize for assuming that you missed the part about Sisko being complicit. I thought that your conclusion would have been different had you taken that into account. I shouldn't have assumed that. Maybe this series isn't your cup of tea? Since I like moral quandries, the writing seems fine to me. In fact, for me, it's better than most since most series don't even try to contain any moral ambiguity. I do think the whole crew would be willing to take that risk. I base that on other episodes where the whole crew go on a mission, risking everyone's lives for one person's project or experiment or even their mistake. I pondered whether that was realistic or not while I was watching it. I think there are a couple factors that make it more believable, after thinking about it. This group of people are self-selected to be interested in exploration. They're willing to risk their lives for what they find. Banding together to protect everyone equally is also a survival technique. They're more powerful as a group than individually. If that means defending a bone-headed mistake of one crew member, it's still the guiding principle. Also, while life is still fragile, medical technology is so advanced that dying is less likely. That makes risk-taking slightly less risky. An episode from TNG had me thinking about the mindset of the crew a lot. In that episode, the crew found several people in cryogenic stasis. One person revived them through one of those bone-headed errors by a crew member, then the rest of the crew had to deal with it. After the doctor fixed all their medical maladies, she said something about them that stayed with me. "Too afraid to live, too scared to die." or words to that effect. To me, it meant that the people on the starship had decided what they were willing to die for. It gave them purpose and meaning. They were willing to risk their lives for what they believed in, and that included each other.I really hate moral quandries
I don't think the whole DS9 crew would be willing to take that risk.
To clarify, I hate moral quandries when people expect me to have some kind of answer to the quandrie and the stubbornness to stick to it to instead of the flexibility to change my mind or appreciate the fact that there's no easy answer. Now that I'm in season two, I'm liking it a bit more, if only because I'm having so much fun being a sour puss and picking it apart. I've already had one good discussion with a friend about how Starfleet is too lax in its vetting process for recruits and we talked about how having a cultural history of breaking rank isn't healthy for a military institution. We argued briefly, over text, whether or not the Star Trek Universe is indeed a post scarcity society (I hold that it isn't and there's a ton of evidence in DS9 alone to support that) and he made the claim that apparently Earth is a paradise, which until I get more information, I'm actually gonna assume that that's a red flag as absolute claims like that tend to be made by cults, authoritarian governments, etc. So, I'm having fun, but not in the way some people would want me to have fun I think. As to the whole risk taking thing, I kind of see where you're coming from, but I kind of disagree too. I'd hold that while individualism is important, the structure of the organization their in and the values they seem to discuss hint towards a focus on big pictures and greater good. With that in mind, some of the little risks they seem to take puts the greater good in jeopardy and yes, I know life's not that simple. I'm not really a huge fan of any of the characters on the show, but I will say I'm kind of enjoying the evolution of Kira's character, only because she slowly seems to be coming around to understanding that the life she used to lead doesn't have the behavior and values that's conducive to the future she's fighting for and so she's learning on the go. Quark is kind of cool too, if only because he's one dimensional to a fault, so even though he's a character, his role strikes me as more mechanical. Everyone knows what Quark wants and what he's gonna do, so it's all about how they navigate around him.Maybe this series isn't your cup of tea?
A moral quandry is uncertain by definition. They don't have definite answers. People expecting you to have answers are not understanding what a moral quandry is. Glad you're having fun. Maybe these people who are supervising your method of fun can be given a different role in your life? Unless you're hurting someone, you get to enjoy what you enjoy. I'm pretty sure there are entire forums where people analyze and criticize the inconsistencies in the Star Trek shows by episode, by series and across series. As the series goes on, Quark gets a bit more 3 dimensional with a bit of back history. A few of the other characters have some interesting back history as well.To clarify, I hate moral quandries when people expect me to have some kind of answer to the quandrie and the stubbornness to stick to it to instead of the flexibility to change my mind or appreciate the fact that there's no easy answer.
So, I'm having fun, but not in the way some people would want me to have fun I think.
Everyone knows what Quark wants and what he's gonna do, so it's all about how they navigate around him.
And there it is. Science fiction isn't supposed to give you the answer. It's supposed to give you the question. It's not their job to resolve the issues they raise, it's their job to give you a new insight or perspective into an existing societal problem masquerading as a sentient alien bred for hunting. It is not the job of the author to tell you what to think, it is the job of the author to give you new insights into the way you already think. The purpose of science fiction is to question assumptions, not deliver platitudes. This comes to the fore in your frustration over the way O'Brien acted - he didn't meet your expectations. He didn't fit into your preconceptions. All the questions this raised for you are there by design - that is the function of the narrative, to get you spooled up and thinking about all this shit. Not to sit back and go "yep, my prejudices are confirmed for the day! Let's watch SportsCenter!"" You're not, though. You're saying "if you're gonna ask questions, fucking answer them" and that's most decidedly not the point.Fuck. Those are a ton of questions. Those questions are deep as fuck. Yet none of them were adequately addressed let alone resolved.
I’m just saying though, if you’re gonna bring up shit for the sake of exploration, fucking explore it.
I understand that to some extent. However, I think if we focus on the Tosk episode a bit, I think the story would have both flowed better and been more satisfying if his purpose in life was revealed earlier and the protagonists had time to dwell on the issue and questions. I don't necessarily want answers, I mean, hell, I listen to fucking NPR Talk Radio for fun sometimes and answers they don't have and I dwell on my own inner conflicts about classism and materialism and spirituality and equality and I sure as fuck don't have answers. But taking the time to really dwell on the questions, to get the conversation ball rolling, adds so much to the satisfaction. The frustration comes not from the fact that he didn't meet my expectations. The frustration comes from that he acted unrealistically. If it was a civilian that met Tosk and did what O'Brien did, I wouldn't have been frustrated because shit, civilians do what they do and sometimes that means fighting the power and not regarding the bigger picture. There's this unrealisticness that comes in a lot of the Sci-Fi episodes that I've seen. Like in OG Star Trek, Captain Kirk goes away on dangerous missions away from the ship. That's unrealistic. Grunts get to grunt and command gets to command because command is too valuable to risk losing. Star Trek, again, has what I understand to be non mission essential civilians on these ships that are gone for years at a time in dangerous territories full of unknown enemies and cosmic phenomena. I don't think I've ever heard a conversation from anyone to where society evolved where it's socially acceptable for groups of people to take risk like that in masses. I mean, they're not the space equivalent of homesteaders going to settle the west. They're a bunch of spouses and children along for a very dangerous ride. If we were to talk in terms of more specifics. The very last episode I saw of DS9 was even more unrealistic to the point I thought all day about everything that was overlooked. It made the Tosk episode seem better in comparison. To narrow it down to just thing though, to avoid another rant, they found a woman who was on the other side of the wormhole for two years, the only known human to do so. To the Federation, that part of the galaxy is a massive question mark. There was no military debriefing to discover and record where she had been, who she had met, and what she had learned and there was no quarantine period to make sure she was in good health. I mean, yeah, Doctor Bashir did give her a check up to find out that she was in amazingly good health, but that was after she was already let on the station that has circulation air and population and water and all. Don't even get me started on Quark trying to bribe Odo so he could hold an illegal auction to sell off alien artifacts and the overlooking of the moral implications of selling cultural artifacts to a bunch of shady rich people to begin with. I think the best analogy I can come up with so far is if the Brooklyn 99 team found a time bomb in their office, acknowledged it was there, and then left it as a central part of the plot without actually trying to figure out where it came from, how to get rid of it, or anything of the sort. That strange woman from the other side of the wormhole is like a time bomb not being addressed. It's unrealistic not because it takes place in outer space and not because there are aliens and wormholes and things of the like. It's unrealistic because to me, that's not how rational people operate. So yeah, I'm still saying, if you're gonna bring up shit for the sake of exploration, explore it. I never said anything about answering it, because resolutions don't necessarily mean concrete answers. But in addition, I'm now also saying, explore things realistically.It's supposed to give you the question.
This comes to the fore in your frustration over the way O'Brien acted - he didn't meet your expectations.
- food comes from replicators - people travel faster than the speed of light - you get to the planet by "beaming" ...and it's the org chart that has you upset? Nope. Sorry, bud. Sticking to my guns on this one: you have a preconception of the way people are supposed to act and you refuse to extend suspension of disbelief to the show because of it. The USS Enterprise may be a big goddamn space ship but it's run a lot more like the PT109. There's a crew of about eight people who matter and then assorted fillerfolk who tend to die. It's literally Wagon Train. That you've got your head wedged about "captains don't do this" or "military men don't do that" says more about you than it does about the show - did you miss the part where O'Brien's wife and kid are there on the space station with him? And how is it that an alien space station tidally locked next to a wormhole gives you no pause, but a shift in military doctrine over the space of 500 years is the Rubicon you will not cross? That's all you. You're not, though. You're saying "I want to talk about the loopholes you're invoking that make me uncomfortable, not the stuff you wrote the show about." And that's typical of sci fi fans, by the way: god help you if there's sounds in space but of course aliens have boobs. This is why they are largely ignored by the market; fans of television will consume television. Fans of sci fi will consume stuff if it's only just so and then bitch about it on internet forums about how inaccurate it is. Actually, that's a lie. Hollywood knows the nerds will watch anyway and doesn't give a fuck if they bitch. A better analogy would be to state that the Brooklyn 99 team found a time bomb and determined it was harmless and then moved on to other things. Remember - it is accepted as the fundamental basis of the universe that people can be constructed out of mutherfucking light with exquisitely perfect accuracy. If you're willing to accept transporters and replicators, you have to accept the notion that a medical scan is fuckin' final. Those are the storyworld rules. This is a big part of writing - determining the storyworld rules and working entirely within them. This gives your narrative the consistency your audience demands: generally, if you say "elves live forever, a palanteer allows you to see across the land and orcs are half-men, half-goblin" people accept it and move on. Platform 4 3/4 or whatever gets you to Hogwart's and if your wand breaks you lose your mojo. You're not accepting the storyworld rules. That's fine. Sci fi probably isn't for you. But stop trying to justify it as a problem of the writing rather than a problem of your enjoyment. Again, Season 1 DS9 ain't great. But it ain't great for reasons utterly unrelated to the justifications you're pulling out of your ass.There's this unrealisticness that comes in a lot of the Sci-Fi episodes that I've seen. Like in OG Star Trek, Captain Kirk goes away on dangerous missions away from the ship. That's unrealistic.
So yeah, I'm still saying, if you're gonna bring up shit for the sake of exploration, explore it.
I think the best analogy I can come up with so far is if the Brooklyn 99 team found a time bomb in their office, acknowledged it was there, and then left it as a central part of the plot without actually trying to figure out where it came from, how to get rid of it, or anything of the sort.
I don't have a problem with replicators. I think the idea is nifty. I'm willing to suspend disbelief about faster than light travel because it's a familiar sci-fi trope and it allows writers to easily tell stories about space exploration. I don't even mind the whole teleporters because it's just another piece of technology and I know it was in the original series because it was easier and cheaper than having scale models of ships landing and taking off. I am lost at the whole organization chart because it does strike me as unrealistic and counter to logical structures and human behavior. I didn't miss the fact that O'Brien's wife and kid are on the space station and that makes a bit more sense because it's a space station on a planet that's trying to rebuild its government after occupation. To me, that's a lot more realistic than flying into the unknown where literally anything can happen, because at least on the space station, the majority of the risks are known. As for the space station next to a worm hole, they have loopy sci-fi ways of explaining how that works if anyone asks the question. But I think I am. We have spaceships and aliens and a government that's trying to rebuild itself and there are gonna be political and personal conflicts about it. I just don't think that unrealistic behavior can be explained by story world rules. I do think it can be chalked up to bad writing. I think I'm fair in that assessment because if I said the same thing about Arrow or Iron Fist, the majority of the comic book loving community would do the internet equivelant of murmuring in agreement. Can I go back and say I enjoyed the episode with the Aphasia Virus? I thought it was a good medical mystery. I enjoyed how the solution to the conflict was the result of a doctor knowing about the origins of the original virus working with Dr. Bashir's research to come up with a solution. I'm willing to ignore the fact that no one actually died even though that's unrealistic. It had pacing issues. It had dialog issues. It didn't have nearly as much forced drama issues. It was an okay episode. Can I go back and say I enjoyed the episode with the "former" terrorist and the bomb? I thought it was a good way to illustrate how some people have a hard time accepting the outcomes of political events. I thought they did an okay job in showing how new situations and new relationships can put a strain on and even break old friendships, creating frustration and doubt. I thought the tailor as a spy was weird. I wish they focused more on the relationship with Kira and the "former" terrorist. I think it ended too cleanly. But it was an okay episode. What both those episodes had in common though, despite their flaws, was that unlike the episodes with Tosk the guy being hunted and Vash the archaeologist who is totally a villain is that everybody acted on the more rational and realistic end of the scale. Back to the Vash episode, I totally didn't like that O'Brien used a battery to help Vash and Dax escape from being trapped in the shuttle. That goes back to the whole using technology as a crutch that takes away the satisfaction from dramatic resolution problem I have. Also, I knew who Q was through cultural osmosis. Seeing him in a show though, I don't think I like his character.You're not accepting the storyworld rules.
In other words, you're willing to accept conventions you already know, but deeply uncomfortable with new concepts you are unfamiliar with. It's entirely possible that the concept of duty, and what it requires of us, is a through-line explored via O'Brien through the course of not just many seasons of DS9, but several seasons of TNG. It's almost as if this were a narrative thread revisited throughout the course of the series. But you didn't know that Vash is Picard's erstwhile girlfriend. You can have it one way or the other: you can be mad that the shows are all self-contained or you can be mad that they don't have any continuity from episode to episode. You can't have it both ways.I'm willing to suspend disbelief about faster than light travel because it's a familiar sci-fi trope and it allows writers to easily tell stories about space exploration. I don't even mind the whole teleporters because it's just another piece of technology and I know it was in the original series because it was easier and cheaper than having scale models of ships landing and taking off.
I am lost at the whole organization chart because it does strike me as unrealistic and counter to logical structures and human behavior.
thought the tailor as a spy was weird. I wish they focused more on the relationship with Kira and the "former" terrorist. I think it ended too cleanly. But it was an okay episode.
Also, I knew who Q was through cultural osmosis.
I mean, I can go either way. Part of the reason I'm watching DS9 from the beginning is because I'm told that the continuity matters down the road. The Vash episode was frustrating to me for a different reason. I think it could have been stretched out to three episodes and as a result not only tell a better story, but also take the time to explore some of the moral quandries brought about by the story and resolve some of them. Some of the resolutions I'd agree with, others I wouldn't, and others I could go either way about, but all of them would have left me satisfied.You can have it one way or the other: you can be mad that the shows are all self-contained or you can be mad that they don't have any continuity from episode to episode. You can't have it both ways.
KB probably has better insight on how this happens but I find that there are often a lot of terrible writing in the in-between episodes. Usually the first episode in a season is great, there is a great mid-season one and then the final 1-2 episodes are great. It seems to me that often the episodes in between are filler. Depending on the show the in between episodes either feel like they are written by people not familiar with the show, or have other inconsistencies that require too much buy in.
Schedules and budgets. Berman-era Star Trek was written as "we start the season here, we end the season there." Some actors had prior engagements and were unavailable for all the episodes; some actors had conditions in their contract that said "at least one episode in this season is gonna be about me." The main throughline had certain set-pieces built in; this was where most of the money for the season was gonna go. So you take all that, you put it in a Gannt chart and you recognize that you've got seventeen of the twenty-six episodes you're contractually bound to make, and you've got four million dollars left over (TNG was infamous when it came out for being the first syndicated series that cost more than a million dollars an episode). So now you've got nine episodes and half your average budget and Patrick Stewart is playing Scrooge on TNT and Gates McFadden is outtie because she's sick of Maurice Hurley rubbing his dick on her in the dressing room which means when you go to the pile of spec scripts you have from writers on and off the show, you can cross out everything with Picard or Crusher. And what you're left with might be great, might be terrible, but can certainly be executed in a way that doesn't fuck up your through line. Not all shows are done like this. I got to talk to David Kring right as Heroes Season 1 wrapped. I asked him how much they knew about the end of the series when they started, because S1 is fuckin' intricate. He blew me away - they knew nothing. They fully intended to kill the cheerleader three episodes in. HRG was a bit-player. They thought it was going to be a show about the Patrelli brothers. But as they wrote, they came up with this thing and they rolled with it. But they ran out of money - in the finale, Patrelli was supposed to throw a bus at Sylar but they didn't have any money for that level of SFX so it ended up being a bus stop sign.
I was talking to my cyberpunk loving, DS9 suggesting friend again last night and he told me Voyager can be a hard watch if you care about consistent characters. He said the Captain seems to have a new personality every week. Sometimes she's all about the rules, sometimes she says damn the rules. Sometimes she's very encouraging, sometimes she's cold and harsh. From what he described, and from what you're describing, it sounds like either writers are being rotated in and out and don't understand the characters or the producers solicit scripts and then try to mold them to fit the show. I hate to compare and contrast westerns again (but hey, I'll stick with what I know I guess), I have a theory that the people in charge of the shows would often just buy scripts and then re-write them a bit to fit the characters and scenery of a show. A lot of the times plots would be so simplistic and stereotypical that anyone could easily take place in The Rifleman or Gunsmoke or Laramie without much adjusting.
Voyager is fucking terrible. Tupac the jive-ass Vulcan and Chipotle the Space Navajo. Rick Berman is the fucking worst. In many cases, it's the personality of the showrunner. Gene Roddenberry was a serial sexual harasser and his wife was always on set (Nurse Chapel, the Computer, Troi's mom). he was bad enough that when he offered Michelle Forbes her own show (DS9) she quit rather than work with him again. But as bad as Roddenberry was around women, apparently men did better. Berman, on the other hand, drove away anybody of any real talent and ran the franchise into the ground. Roddenberry had a great group of writers around him but there was a hell of a diaspora when he died. Rene Echevarria left. Naren Shankar left. Ron Moore left. They were pretty much left with Brannon Braga and DC Fontana.