How did the Voyager premise differ and how was it received?

Voyager was different in that it was almost Lost in Space, to some degree. You suddenly had this crew that didn't know where it was going. So you had a compelling storyline. You solved the problem that became apparent to Deep Space Nine; they were no longer stationary, they once again returned to the classic Star Trek formula of exploration.

The one problem is it was on a network now, instead of syndication. Paramount decided to use the Star Trek franchise to give birth to an entire new network: the United Paramount Network. At first it worked - the debut of Star Trek Voyager still ranks, I believe, as the most watched programme in the history of the entire UPN network.

The problem is quality � qualitatively, many fans felt the series just wasn't up to the first two. The storylines were not as intriguing, that the whole idea of being lost dominated the show. Instead of being about exploration it was about coming home. And some felt that that limited its appeal.

There is also a feeling that the Star Trek ethos, as dictated by Gene Roddenberry, has started to grow stale. Certain rules about Star Trek - the prime directive, et cetera limited what writers could do. The Star Trek captains had to be heroic - they sometimes couldn't be as human as producers and writers might want them to be. And that limited the storytelling appeal.

Nonetheless it remained consistently UPN's highest rated entertainment show and while it never reached anywhere near the audience of the syndicated shows, it did well enough that it lasted six years. The repeats have now been sold into syndication as well and I think Paramount will more than make its money back.