Why Didn't Harry Get Promoted?

[Lynx]

Stay where you feel good =/= career or money. That's absurdity on its face.

No, it's not. It's all about creating a good life for oneself.

False equivalency.

Why?

And it fails.

Definitely not. On the contrary, this is what most fans like, to have more good stories with their favorites.

Just look at NCIS where Gibbs was the leading field agent for 19 seasons and people loved it. When the actor retired, the interest for the series sunk. It's not as popular as it used to be.
I watched every episode of the series up to season 19, now i only watch it occasionaly and it is the only TV series which i still watch.

Personally I've had some trouble with the "Relaunch books" too because the authors removed many great characters and added new ones instead. When I read a DS9 book, I want to read about Sisko, Odo, Kira and the others. Not seeeing Sisko be replaced by some Ebenezer Springerkoff as the captain on the station. OK, I can accept characters like Ebenezer Springerkoff and Miranda Whottley as characters in a story, like Broik or Morn but I don't want such characters to replace the original ones.

The same when it comes to Voyager books and stories. Having Janeway behind a desk, thinking about if she's gonna become a recluse on Ireland or start an ostrich farm is horrible.

 

[fireproof78]

No, it's not. It's all about creating a good life for oneself.

Then you missed my point.

Why?

It assumes that Kirk's career is limited to either behind the desk or with a starship, rather than growing in more leadership roles.

Definitely not. On the contrary, this is what most fans like, to have more good stories with their favorites.

Argues against something I didn't argue. Of course fans want good stories with their favorites. My point is that good stories don't freeze their characters in time.

Just look at NCIS where Gibbs was the leading field agent for 19 seasons and people loved it. When the actor retired, the interest for the series sunk. It's not as popular as it used to be.

Popularity is a poor measurement.

I still watch it.

 

[Oddish]

Nog's promotion to Lt. in under two years during a war can be taken far more seriously than Kim's lack of a promotion in 7 years of good service.

It might have been tolerable if no one on the ship was promoted, aside from initial commissions. But people were promoted.

And remember that for whatever reason, this was a big deal to them. They devoted far more time to rubbing the viewers' nose in Harry being stuck at ensign than it would have just taken to just promote him and be done with it. And of course, they've been careful not to reveal his fate afterward, even though Garrett Wang has been eager and available.

Kim's a department head. Should be lieutenant j.g. at the least.

And that's actually part of the weird irony of his character, because the writers couldn't handle character evolution.

When the show started, Harry was the correct rank for a newly minted officer, but in a position that didn't make sense for him. Voyager was a state of the art starship and its chief of operations should have been an experienced officer. Data was third in command of the Enterprise.

At the end, Harry's position made sense for a quality officer with 7 years experience. But his rank didn't reflect it. And fixing that would have only required adding pips to his collar.

 

[Lynx]

Then you missed my point.

How?

It assumes that Kirk's career is limited to either behind the desk or with a starship, rather than growing in more leadership roles.

If I remember it correctly, he was promoted to Admiral in the first Star Trek movie but became a Captain again.
If he had remained an Admiral, then he would have been a boring character and people would have lost interest.

Argues against something I didn't argue. Of course fans want good stories with their favorites. My point is that good stories don't freeze their characters in time.

Good stories don't diminish or eliminate good characters.

Popularity is a poor measurement.
I still watch it.

Nice to see that the show still have followers, despite that almost all of the great characters are gone. Compared to all other crap series they shove upon us in these days, it's actually still watchable. The stories are still quite good.

 

[fireproof78]

If I remember it correctly, he was promoted to Admiral in the first Star Trek movie but became a Captain again.
If he had remained an Admiral, then he would have been a boring character and people would have lost interest.

He was an admiral until the fourth film. TWOK, the second film, is hardly considered boring. In fact, it is far more action oriented and the Abrams' film of its day.

How?

Because staying where you feel good does not promote growth.

"No, no, Bones, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums."

Good stories don't diminish or eliminate good characters.

Yes, they absolutely do.

Nice to see that the show still have followers, despite that almost all of the great characters are gone. Compared to all other crap series they shove upon us in these days, it's actually still watchable. The stories are still quite good.

I am sorry to hear you are forced to watch things.

 

[Oddish]

A lot of it concerns the show's format. Originally, on TNG, Riker was supposed to be the one going down to planets while Picard minded the ship. Making even the captain more of an administrative figure.

 

[Set Harth]

In fact, it is far more action oriented and the Abrams' film of its day.

Just with less lens flare and Greg Grunberg.

 

[Lynx]

He was an admiral until the fourth film. TWOK, the second film, is hardly considered boring. In fact, it is far more action oriented and the Abrams' film of its day.

Sorry, I had forgotten that.
TWOK is actually the best of the Trek movies from that era so I have to agree here.
But any of the Trek fimsfrom that era is better than the Abrams films

Because staying where you feel good does not promote growth.

"No, no, Bones, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums."

It can promote growth with good writers. I don't think anyone can complain about Picard here.
But maybe Janeway when she was dumped behind a desk.

Yes, they absolutely do.

Not if good characters are killed off and replaced by lousy or uninteresting characters.

I am sorry to hear you are forced to watch things.

Thank you very much for your concern. I'm delighted

However, the problems are not that I'm forced to watch things but the fact that tere are few intersting things to watch nowadays.

 

[fireproof78]

Sorry, I had forgotten that.
TWOK is actually the best of the Trek movies from that era so I have to agree here.
But any of the Trek fimsfrom that era is better than the Abrams films

I love the Abrams films because they are all about growth and human potential. TWOK is a separate beast. No need to compare.

can promote growth with good writers. I don't think anyone can complain about Picard here.
But maybe Janeway when she was dumped behind a desk.

I think both were ok as admirals. You are correct in that it requires good writers willing to not stagnate their characters and keeping them morribund in rank is stagnation.

That Star Trek celebrates this as captain being the highest good is equally annoying to me.

Not if good characters are killed off and replaced by lousy or uninteresting characters.

Disagree.

A good character being killed off absolutely can be good storytelling.

However, the problems are not that I'm forced to watch things but the fact that tere are few intersting things to watch nowadays.

I guess I don't have this problem.

 

[Oddish]

It can promote growth with good writers. I don't think anyone can complain about Picard here.
But maybe Janeway when she was dumped behind a desk.

There's an interesting video on YouTube about Janeway and PTSD... maybe after all she went through, she was ready for the relative mundaneness of a desk.

A good character being killed off absolutely can be good storytelling.

Indeed, yes. Spock's death in "The Wrath of Khan" was excellent storytelling. No, he didn't stay dead. But even so, it had an impact.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Every 6 months are crew evaluations?

Hmmm.

Every 6 months, there are supposed to be crew evaluations, according to TNG Lower Decks.

Its not Harry.

Its everyone.

The biannual grading these people are supposed to get have been suspended by the madwoman at the top, because, probably, she is on a first name basis with everyone, so she already knows who is good at their job and who is shit, and there's no way to reward the excellent officers or evict the remedial officers.

Tuvok still gets 17 reports a day from very section head about who the trouble makers are for Janeway's enemies list.

 

[Oddish]

That's the "Janeway is a nutcase" argument. And were it genuinely the case, Janeway would not have been promoted upon Voyager's return, she'd have been committed.

 

[Lynx]

I love the Abrams films because they are all about growth and human potential. TWOK is a separate beast. No need to compare.

I can't stand the Abrams films. They mess up established continuity and I don't like the actors.

I think both were ok as admirals. You are correct in that it requires good writers willing to not stagnate their characters and keeping them morribund in rank is stagnation.

That Star Trek celebrates this as captain being the highest good is equally annoying to me.

Yes, it do requires good writers and stories to keep them interesting.

Disagree.

A good character being killed off absolutely can be good storytelling.

In some cases, yes. maybe like Khan in TWOK. But not good main characters who could be used better in future episodes, movies or books. Characters like Gowron and Garak. Or the total meaningless destruction of Kirk in Generations.

I guess I don't have this problem.

Oh lucky you!

There's an interesting video on YouTube about Janeway and PTSD... maybe after all she went through, she was ready for the relative mundaneness of a desk.

I haven't watched it but I will.
But shouldn't the medical knowledger of the 24th century be able to cure that?

Indeed, yes. Spock's death in "The Wrath of Khan" was excellent storytelling. No, he didn't stay dead. But even so, it had an impact.

I didn't like it.
First, it was a total waste of one of the most important characters ever in Star Trek. Could anyone imagine the coming movies without Spock? I can't.

Bringing him back the way they did was actually on the verge of ridicule. Not as ridiculous and spectacular as the legendary Bobby Ewing comeback in Dallas but almost.

But I'm happy that they did it.

 

[fireproof78]

I can't stand the Abrams films. They mess up established continuity and I don't like the actors.

It doesn't do any harm to continuity and probably the most Trekkiest of the films.

Yes, it do requires good writers and stories to keep them interesting.

Of course. But good is subjective.

n some cases, yes. maybe like Khan in TWOK. But not good main characters who could be used better in future episodes, movies or books. Characters like Gowron and Garak. Or the total meaningless destruction of Kirk in Generations.

If a character's death serves the story, kill them. Gowron, Kirk, and especially Garak. Let them die.

Oh lucky you!

It aren't that hard.

Could anyone imagine the coming movies without Spock

Yes.

 

[Oddish]

I haven't watched it but I will.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

But shouldn't the medical knowledger of the 24th century be able to cure that?

Yes and no. I'm sure that bad memories can be erased or blurred. Indeed, my head canon is that's why O'Brien wasn't tormented for years by his "prison" sentence... Bashir did some work, and in the end O'Brien remembered it the way he remembered his bachelor party: a blur.

But since PTSD is based in memories, the only way to completely deal with it is to wipe out the memories. I doubt Janeway would have taken such an easy way out. Maybe, like Kirk, she needs her pain. Unlike O'Brien's prison time, which was undeserved and contributed nothing but misery, and good riddance.

First, it was a total waste of one of the most important characters ever in Star Trek. Could anyone imagine the coming movies without Spock? I can't.

That's why they brought him back. But nonetheless, it's character death done right: it's both totally heroic, and completely logical.

If a character's death serves the story, kill them. Gowron, Kirk, and especially Garak. Let them die.

But it has to be done right, especially for an icon like Kirk. Even Gowron's death felt out of character to me.

 

[Set Harth]

I can't stand the Abrams films. They mess up established continuity and I don't like the actors.

How do they mess up established continuity if they take place in an alternate timeline?

 

[Lynx]

It doesn't do any harm to continuity and probably the most Trekkiest of the films.

I don't find any of the Abrams movies "Trekkie" at all. They are just lame attempts to recreate TOS.

If a character's death serves the story, kill them. Gowron, Kirk, and especially Garak. Let them die.

In the cases aboove, none of their deaths served the story.

Kirk should have been left alone, maybe dying in his sleep of old age in his own century than to brought back only to be killed off in that ridiculous story.
In fact, Kirk's death destroyed what could have been a good movie.

It was totally unnecessary to kill of Gowron and it was totally out of character and it was downright insanity to ruin and damage Garak in a terrible book.

Not to mention that we lost two great characters wou would have been available for further episodes, movies and books.

That's not good storytelling. That's just destruction for the sake of destruction.

Yes.

No, definitely not! The Star Trek movies would have lost too much without Spock. That was therefore they persuaded Nimoy to return and brought him back.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Yes and no. I'm sure that bad memories can be erased or blurred. Indeed, my head canon is that's why O'Brien wasn't tormented for years by his "prison" sentence... Bashir did some work, and in the end O'Brien remembered it the way he remembered his bachelor party: a blur.

But since PTSD is based in memories, the only way to completely deal with it is to wipe out the memories. I doubt Janeway would have taken such an easy way out. Maybe, like Kirk, she needs her pain. Unlike O'Brien's prison time, which was undeserved and contributed nothing but misery, and good riddance.

That's why they brought him back. But nonetheless, it's character death done right: it's both totally heroic, and completely logical.

But it has to be done right, especially for an icon like Kirk. Even Gowron's death felt out of character to me.

This video is very interesting and should be worth a longer discussion in another thread.
I actually have to agree when it comes to the PSTD theory here.

Personally I liked Janeway in seasons 1, 2 and 3 but I didn't like her in seasons 4,5 and those season 6 episodes I watched, I never wayched season 7 except for that horrible Endgame.

Back then I blamed it on bad writing.

As for Spock, the Trek movies would have gone down like a led balloon if Spck hadn't been in them.
Therefore they brought back the character.

As I wrote in a previous comment above:
Kirk should have been left alone, maybe dying in his sleep of old age in his own century than to brought back only to be killed off in that ridiculous story.

In fact, Kirk's death destroyed what could have been a good movie.

It was totally unnecessary to kill of Gowron and it was totally out of character and it was downright insanity to ruin and damage Garak in a terrible book.

Not to mention that we lost two great characters wou would have been available for further episodes, movies and books.

That's not good storytelling. That's just destruction for the sake of destruction.

How do they mess up established continuity if they take place in an alternate timeline?

Just the fact that it takes place in an alternate timeline messes everything up.

 

[fireproof78]

That's not good storytelling. That's just destruction for the sake of destruction.

Disagree. Obviously. Death always serves a story.

definitely not! The Star Trek movies would have lost too much without Spock. That was therefore they persuaded Nimoy to return and brought him back.

Disagree and I say this with Spock as my favorite Trek character. But he is not irreplaceable.

don't find any of the Abrams movies "Trekkie" at all. They are just lame attempts to recreate TOS.

How tragic for you. The depth there equals TOS at times, as Kirk grows, fails and learns. Emblematic of humanity, and TOS reflecting both virtue and vice within the same person.

 

[Oddish]

In the cases aboove, none of their deaths served the story.

Kirk and Gowron, agreed. Kirk's appearance was meant to serve as the "passing of the torch", and they felt they had to eliminate him to complete it... but it had to really be done right.

Kirk should have been left alone, maybe dying in his sleep of old age in his own century than to brought back only to be killed off in that ridiculous story.
In fact, Kirk's death destroyed what could have been a good movie.

Or pulled back into the Nexus again via some technobabble MacGuffin or other. That way, you're not killing him off, and he can even be brought back later.

It was totally unnecessary to kill of Gowron and it was totally out of character and it was downright insanity to ruin and damage Garak in a terrible book.

I didn't read the book, and there are probably lots of TrekLit books that screw with characters. But I was pissed about Gowron as well. It took a lot of thought to assassinate three characters in one shot (even "Nightingale" only managed two). But "Tacking into the Wind" succeeded.
- Gowron was portrayed as a character willing to risk the Empire for politics... and to stymie Martok's imperial ambitions, only Martok wanted to stay far away from politics.
- Worf quite simply made a mess, and demanded that Martok clean it up for him.
- And Martok was passive enough to go along with all this. He should have shoved that coat back on Worf's shoulders with a "Screw you, pe'taQ! Deal with this yourself!"

That's not good storytelling. That's just destruction for the sake of destruction.

And you can only get away with that with characters your audience isn't invested in. For me, the worst example was having Weyoun suffer perma-death in DS9. One of Trek's best characters slaughtered in cold blood, and it feels like a footnote.

No, definitely not! The Star Trek movies would have lost too much without Spock. That was therefore they persuaded Nimoy to return and brought him back.

I agree it would have been difficult. Spock was the only alien character in the ensemble. And you need an alien character to provide that essential outsider perspective.

Personally I liked Janeway in seasons 1, 2 and 3 but I didn't like her in seasons 4,5 and those season 6 episodes I watched, I never wayched season 7 except for that horrible Endgame.

Back then I blamed it on bad writing.

Well, we ARE dealing with a writing crew who couldn't even count to 38, or figure out that an ensign is supposed to make lieutenant.

As for Spock, the Trek movies would have gone down like a led balloon if Spck hadn't been in them.
Therefore they brought back the character.

I doubt the Trek movies would have even happened.

Just the fact that it takes place in an alternate timeline messes everything up.

Full disagree. Alternate timelines allow the audience to explore the consequences of different choices or events, without a full commitment. The hazard is that sometimes, an alternate universe provides a more compelling reality than the prime universe, as seen with VOY's "Before and After". Yes, it had issues... but the characters actually showed growth.

 

[Set Harth]

Just the fact that it takes place in an alternate timeline messes everything up.

That makes no sense. What did it mess up?