doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
However true that may be, it still does not answer my question.
End of Season 5 weirdness
- Thread starter Turd Ferguson
- Start date
Withers
Captain
I'm a member of the WGA East and I've submitted a few scripts in my free time. I'm an editor at a publishing firm (albeit a small one) and I have a degree in English Literature. All that separates me from being a "professional" is drive and success (the same thing that separated everybody from it before they had those things.) I don't think you actually wanted a list of my accolades though-
So what are you driving at?
So what are you driving at?
-Withers-
One day when we ask a noob "Is your name Rick Berman" that noob is going to say "Yes."
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Withers, don't get so defensive. I was merely curious.
Many's the time this discussion has circulated here and it's mostly populated by know-it-all blowhards.
The (simple) point I was trying to make was essentially: If you think you could do better, go ahead and do it."
I've spent most of my life writing. On my own, usually. And I continued to go about the same way until I finally got a job on a scripted show and what I saw there completely changed my perspective not only on how I should be writing, but also how shows are written by the pros.
I'll reiterate my earlier point:
Really, anything we say here doesn't amount to much more than "Here's what I would like to see or would have rather seen."
That doesn't necessarily mean your idea is better or worse, it just means that the writing staff on any given show will write the best show they think they can under the constraints they have to operate under.
Just because we can look back now in retrospect (or even at the time the show was airing) and say "Wow, why didn't they do this?" or "Man, that is so not the way they should have done it!" fails to take into account the reality of what the job of the professional television drama writer truly entails.
When I asked if you are a professional television writer, it was mainly to see if you had worked in a writer's room and had some understanding about how a writer's room works. (Though granted, it's different from show to show).
So when you give an answer that essentially says "I've never worked on staff with a television writer's room," it's hard for me to take the angry criticism very seriously, especially about a show that's been off the air for nearly a decade.
Many's the time this discussion has circulated here and it's mostly populated by know-it-all blowhards.
The (simple) point I was trying to make was essentially: If you think you could do better, go ahead and do it."
I've spent most of my life writing. On my own, usually. And I continued to go about the same way until I finally got a job on a scripted show and what I saw there completely changed my perspective not only on how I should be writing, but also how shows are written by the pros.
I'll reiterate my earlier point:
Really, anything we say here doesn't amount to much more than "Here's what I would like to see or would have rather seen."
That doesn't necessarily mean your idea is better or worse, it just means that the writing staff on any given show will write the best show they think they can under the constraints they have to operate under.
Just because we can look back now in retrospect (or even at the time the show was airing) and say "Wow, why didn't they do this?" or "Man, that is so not the way they should have done it!" fails to take into account the reality of what the job of the professional television drama writer truly entails.
When I asked if you are a professional television writer, it was mainly to see if you had worked in a writer's room and had some understanding about how a writer's room works. (Though granted, it's different from show to show).
So when you give an answer that essentially says "I've never worked on staff with a television writer's room," it's hard for me to take the angry criticism very seriously, especially about a show that's been off the air for nearly a decade.
Last edited:
Withers
Captain
So, essentially, if I wasn't in the room my criticisms are invalidated as they likely have an excuse that I would know had I been there?
How to say this... "Eff that."
In my opinion the writing staff on Voyager didn't write professionally. They didn't pay attention to their own work, they didn't flesh out their own ideas to much fanfare, and they kept the "drama" of the show as light as possible to its detriment. I didn't need to "be there" (nor do I need the experience of having been in a similar situation) to know that those things should have been done. I don't honestly think they did their best because if they had...well, Voyager wouldn't be what it is on several fronts.
All of that is to say nothing of the fact that they had examples of Trek done well and they had examples of Trek done...not so well. It seems like they repeated the later more often than not for seemingly inexplicable purposes (though the UPN involvement sheds light on a great deal of it in the early seasons I suppose.)
So, in summation, yes- developed characters are preferable to undeveloped characters, fleshed out story lines are preferable to ones that aren't fleshed out, and effort is preferable to whatever the hell at least 60% of this show was. I don't need anything beyond one working eye, one working ear, and a brain capable of processing said forms of information to know that.
How to say this... "Eff that."
In my opinion the writing staff on Voyager didn't write professionally. They didn't pay attention to their own work, they didn't flesh out their own ideas to much fanfare, and they kept the "drama" of the show as light as possible to its detriment. I didn't need to "be there" (nor do I need the experience of having been in a similar situation) to know that those things should have been done. I don't honestly think they did their best because if they had...well, Voyager wouldn't be what it is on several fronts.
All of that is to say nothing of the fact that they had examples of Trek done well and they had examples of Trek done...not so well. It seems like they repeated the later more often than not for seemingly inexplicable purposes (though the UPN involvement sheds light on a great deal of it in the early seasons I suppose.)
So, in summation, yes- developed characters are preferable to undeveloped characters, fleshed out story lines are preferable to ones that aren't fleshed out, and effort is preferable to whatever the hell at least 60% of this show was. I don't need anything beyond one working eye, one working ear, and a brain capable of processing said forms of information to know that.
-Withers-
Not really, if a character is already deep and interesting enough to start with they don't really need a lot of development. Plenty of character decay comes from such "development".
What makes a "fleshed out storyline"?
And what does effort matter when it still doesn't work and there still isn't any appreciation from anyone? And no, do NOT reply with a "if there's no appreciation then there wasn't enough effort" because it is VERY true that some can put a lot of effort into something and STILL not get any respect or appreciation for it.
What makes a "fleshed out storyline"?
And what does effort matter when it still doesn't work and there still isn't any appreciation from anyone? And no, do NOT reply with a "if there's no appreciation then there wasn't enough effort" because it is VERY true that some can put a lot of effort into something and STILL not get any respect or appreciation for it.
Withers
Captain
Well, if they'd written characters to start out with, as opposed to sterotypes, I'd say you had a point as it relates to what was posted. They didn't do that though.
That I'll agree with; just look what they did with Q.
So we have an example of them writing stereotypes and another example of them ruining something that previously established through their attempts at development. What about that suggests that they were "professional?"
That's like asking what makes a well built car. The answer is a finished product that is a well built car.
More to the point (in an attempt to dodge your "Crucifixion of Voyager" spiel I feel on the horizon) is that you can work really hard on something and it can still not be your best work and it can still suck. It's the explanation for studying really hard, paying attention in class, and still getting a C- on the test.
-Withers-
Oh yeah? What made the VOY cast stereotypes, hm? No more than any other Trek cast.
With Q, they already pretty much used up his story in TNG so there wasn't much to be done with him anyways. He always worked better with the TNG cast. So again there's not much they could've done aside from not use him.
A "Well built" car is in the eye of the beholder.
In that case, it's up to the teacher and the parents to aid the student and find out WHY their marks don't add up with effort. With VOY, the "teacher" and "parents" are a bunch of dicks who just use it as an excuse of what a horrible "student" the VOY writers are and completely overlook their efforts and only see the failure without seeing ANYTHING else. In effect, really abusive parents with a sadistic teacher.
"Best of Both Worlds" could've been a VOY episode and the audience still would've hated it.
With Q, they already pretty much used up his story in TNG so there wasn't much to be done with him anyways. He always worked better with the TNG cast. So again there's not much they could've done aside from not use him.
A "Well built" car is in the eye of the beholder.
In that case, it's up to the teacher and the parents to aid the student and find out WHY their marks don't add up with effort. With VOY, the "teacher" and "parents" are a bunch of dicks who just use it as an excuse of what a horrible "student" the VOY writers are and completely overlook their efforts and only see the failure without seeing ANYTHING else. In effect, really abusive parents with a sadistic teacher.
"Best of Both Worlds" could've been a VOY episode and the audience still would've hated it.
Withers
Captain
B.S.
Chakotay was about as stereotypical as you can get without being straight up derogatory (and there are plenty of people who think they managed to cross that line more than once.) All that could have made that worse was mention of his former life as a blackjack dealer at a Casino.
And that is the sort of professionalism I would expect from Trek writers; know when not to use a thing. You know who learned that lesson? DS9. They used Q once and it was over.
No. A "pretty" car is in the eye of the beholder. A "hot" car is in the eye of the beholder. A "nice" car is in the eye of the beholder. A "well built car" has parameters that, without, would not be well built. "Pretty" would be suggesting they do arcs. "Hot" would be suggesting they keep Kes and lose Harry. "Well built" would be suggesting they pay attention to their own writing as they go along. The alternative is to not pay attention to their own writing (which they didn't) which then begs the question "if it's not good enough for you (writers) why the hell should it be good enough for me?"
Did you just call critics of Voyager "a bunch of dicks?" We all know how zealous the moderating team is around here about that sort of language. I'm only saying it because without you around this place gets a little stale-
to the point, no, a C- is a C- is a C- and it has nothing to do with anything but what the student produced. I have a two pronged issue with Voyger; one is the misuse of what they had and the other is the writing teams lack of attention to their own work and the work of other Trek writers on other shows. You can't tell me, based on that, what I would or would not hypothetically "hate."
-Withers-
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Withers, there's a particularly nasty tone in your posts. It'd be a lot easier to continue this discussion if you dropped it.
That said, thank you for replying to my response earlier. If I thought there were a way to continue this discussion reasonably I would, but you seem to have made up your mind and would simply rather complain without offering any concrete suggestions as to how you would improve upon the show.
Here's a little challenge for you: Comprise a list of grievances. These are the issues you have with the show. Pick your top 10. Detail them and then, detail also your suggestions/alternatives as to how YOU would have done better.
Because it's easy to bitch about the problems day and night. Solving the problems or at the very least offering constructive ideas about how to approach solving those problems is the hard work. So far all I've seen in this thread from you are loud noise and angry vitriol. More bees with honey than vinegar, Withers. Impress me.
That said, thank you for replying to my response earlier. If I thought there were a way to continue this discussion reasonably I would, but you seem to have made up your mind and would simply rather complain without offering any concrete suggestions as to how you would improve upon the show.
Here's a little challenge for you: Comprise a list of grievances. These are the issues you have with the show. Pick your top 10. Detail them and then, detail also your suggestions/alternatives as to how YOU would have done better.
Because it's easy to bitch about the problems day and night. Solving the problems or at the very least offering constructive ideas about how to approach solving those problems is the hard work. So far all I've seen in this thread from you are loud noise and angry vitriol. More bees with honey than vinegar, Withers. Impress me.
Last edited:
Hardly.
No more than most other "ethnic" characters in Trek. Then again, Beltran probably brought most of that on himself for being such a jerk on set.
That's more to do with the contempt the DS9 team have for TNG than "professionalism". Also, all they did was replace Q with their own omnipotent aliens. If they replicated the Prophet/Pah-Wraith conflict with a Q war and the writing was the same no one would've liked it. VOY was in a more desperate position than TNG or DS9 (more dependent on ratings than either of them) and since NOTHING else was working they had to rely on more guest characters from prior programs. The alternative was cancellation (and NOT, as I KNOW you'll say, "better writing").
Not possible.
So it's "Hot" to open yourself up the racism charges?
{quote]"Well built" would be suggesting they pay attention to their own writing as they go along.[/quote]
They did, as much as possible when dealing with their straitjacket premise.
You aren't dependent on the viewer reaction to the program for employment and money, and if the show tanks YOU won't be the one who is fired and blacklisted from further work thanks to Paramount. It may not be "good enough" for you, but for them it was as good as it was going to get.
"Abusive" is closer.
Thanks to the "Parents" and "teacher" not doing their duties (this analogy of yours isn't really working).
You can't really misuse nothing, and nothing is all they had to work with.
They tried their hardest, and whatever questionable things done were out of desperation and not simple ignorance or lack of professionalism.
Withers
Captain
Anwar! Welcome back. It's good to know those old chestnuts get a fresh coat of...whatever you polish chestnuts with at least once a week.
The point was that they wrote him as a stereotype and didn't develop him beyond that status. So saying that he started off "good enough" just doesn't hold any water. He started off with potential and ended with that very same amount of potential.
The arcs and Kim instead of Kes are examples of things that are just opinions. My suggestion that they pay more attention to their own writing which, while an opinion, would be hard to reason against unless you bring up...
I'm going to agree with your assessment of the analogy... that idea just isn't getting through and it's too muddle for me to want to make any more sense of it.
Okay, name an example of a more ethnically unsound character than Chakotay if you can. I don't think there is one. You can blame Robert Beltran for being unenthusiastic, for being uncharismatic, and for seeming bored, but you can't blame him for the writers giving him a magic peace rock, failing to name the tribe he was from, or having him habitually repeat that eye-rolling mantra of his. Either way that's not the point.
The point was that they wrote him as a stereotype and didn't develop him beyond that status. So saying that he started off "good enough" just doesn't hold any water. He started off with potential and ended with that very same amount of potential.
That is all beside the point. The point of my mentioning Q was the fact that their attempt to "develop" him on Voyager was a failure. It was illustrating your point, not bringing up a new one. You might not think so but better writing and use of material actually does, generally, produce better work (be it a play, a script, a tv show, a movie or what have you.)
The arcs and Kim instead of Kes are examples of things that are just opinions. My suggestion that they pay more attention to their own writing which, while an opinion, would be hard to reason against unless you bring up...
****! I'm not going down that route with you again, at least not in this thread. If you suddenly think that has merit again I'll meet you in the Voyager Premise thread. But I beg you... consider what you're saying before you say it (again.)
I'm going to agree with your assessment of the analogy... that idea just isn't getting through and it's too muddle for me to want to make any more sense of it.
That's dangerously close to a premise remark but I'm going to take the bait; Voyager had every bit as much to work with (if not more) than the shows that preceded it. If they were lacking something it was creativity and self checking phrases "Is this any good" and "Should we really make this episode?"
If I cant say it was ignorance and lack of professionalism you, by virtue of the logic, can't say they tried their hardest. If that was their best effort then I really am in the wrong business because I've read stuff scribbled on cocktail napkins that were more fleshed out.
-Withers-
I'm not sure what you guys are out to prove and quite frankly I'm finding it hard to care.
anwar, I can appreciate your passion for Voyager and I too get impatient with those who show up here to troll. However, that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms of this or any other show for that matter. Please dial it back.
withers, I have to agree with doubleohfive that there is a nasty tone to your posts. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not and if so what you're hoping to accomplish. Time will tell I guess.
anwar, I can appreciate your passion for Voyager and I too get impatient with those who show up here to troll. However, that doesn't mean there aren't legitimate criticisms of this or any other show for that matter. Please dial it back.
withers, I have to agree with doubleohfive that there is a nasty tone to your posts. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not and if so what you're hoping to accomplish. Time will tell I guess.
Withers
Captain
Well there's a galloping shock.
You just told me that doing so was essentially a worthless and futile effort because, without prior experience sitting in a writers room of television show, my "suggestions" would be dismissible on the grounds that they weren't from a professional. In point of fact I don't necessarily disagree with that which is why my critiques (which you so fondly refer to as vitriolic and loud) tend to focus on the approach to the show rather than specific issues like whether or not Janeway and Chakotay should have gotten together or whether or not it was wise to bring the Borg children into the mix. "Pay attention to the history of your own writing" and "exercise discretion when involving characters that were already firmly established in other shows" are my way of doing just what you asked and are different from what you claimed to be invalid and what you then asked me to do one post later.
I didn't hate this show by any stretch of the imagination. I think it could have been executed in a better fashion and that they had the history of good writing to do so. I don't think any sort of background is necessary to come to that conclusion nor do I think saying so emphatically equates to being a rude loud mouth. Failing to bring up those issues, however, equates to a white washing free pass, negating the purpose of the conversation in the first place.
Yes, yes- what sinister motives lurk behind the screen? *Cue Garak's theme*
P.S.
I am not trolling. I actually enjoy debating with Anwar. His sticktoitiveness keeps me sharp and in debates that's never a bad thing. Furthermore (I so rarely get to use that word) I've made the majority of my 600 posts in this forum. So I find it sort of "nasty" that such an implication would be made. Posters make forums go-round.
-Withers-
Last edited:
One guy said that your suggestions wouldn't be worth it due to you not being a Trek writer. The rest of us have said the opposite and are actually eager to hear what you think should've been done, I've asked this REPEATEDLY actually and gotten zip in response. I rewrote the entire show once and posted it here, to the interest of several posters. So I'm open to hearing more of the same.
So tell me, how would YOU have done the show? We can argue over THOSE points then and whether or not they'd have fit the straitjacket of the show and UPN's restrictions.
So tell me, how would YOU have done the show? We can argue over THOSE points then and whether or not they'd have fit the straitjacket of the show and UPN's restrictions.
Withers
Captain
I'm going to refer you to the blocks and blocks of text that came from not only me but from Saito and RyuRoots as well. It was one suggestion after another that was debunked in one of two ways; either it didn't fit with your wildly strict interpretation of the premise or UPN wouldn't have allowed it. Every single suggestion that was made was met with the same reasoning of why it could not be done. After repeated attempts at nailing said ideas home finally started to crack the surface you resorted to "the haters would have hated it anyway."
Specifics? Look anywhere outside this thread in the Voyager forum where we've debated at length, be it the Borg thread or the thread about the premise and you'll see you and I have already done this. If there's something new (like what we were getting to before the posts about what a jerk I am) I'm more than happy to go there with ya paly but I am not going to rehash the eighty thousand words we've used to do this once already. Go up a few posts and pick from that basket of goodies. Surely there's something in there we can argue about
Specifics? Look anywhere outside this thread in the Voyager forum where we've debated at length, be it the Borg thread or the thread about the premise and you'll see you and I have already done this. If there's something new (like what we were getting to before the posts about what a jerk I am) I'm more than happy to go there with ya paly but I am not going to rehash the eighty thousand words we've used to do this once already. Go up a few posts and pick from that basket of goodies. Surely there's something in there we can argue about
-Withers-
Some stuff about "more character development", "better villains", "keep track of torpedoes", etc.
So I'm asking you, instead of saying "better development", give me an outline of where you think the characters should've gone. Not some one-sentence complaint but an actual write-up of how the characters should've gone, in your opinion.
Because you've never given any examples of WHAT they should've been, just "more". So here's your chance to show us what this "more" is.
I admit, with my re-write, I had to do some pretty big changes. I wouldn't have done the show until DS9 was done, I wouldn't have made it on UPN, I wouldn't have made it a flagship show either. Doing all that means the show would've had more time and effort put into it conceptually before it began filming, CGI would've been less costly, and just being a normal Trek show and not a network one would've gotten rid of most Executive Meddling.
But that's not what I'm asking you.
So I'm asking you, instead of saying "better development", give me an outline of where you think the characters should've gone. Not some one-sentence complaint but an actual write-up of how the characters should've gone, in your opinion.
Because you've never given any examples of WHAT they should've been, just "more". So here's your chance to show us what this "more" is.
I admit, with my re-write, I had to do some pretty big changes. I wouldn't have done the show until DS9 was done, I wouldn't have made it on UPN, I wouldn't have made it a flagship show either. Doing all that means the show would've had more time and effort put into it conceptually before it began filming, CGI would've been less costly, and just being a normal Trek show and not a network one would've gotten rid of most Executive Meddling.
But that's not what I'm asking you.
Withers
Captain
You want me to re-write Voyager essentially. I've done as close to that as I plan to knowing ahead of time what your objections will be based on what I've already read. Just to prove it let's take just one of the things you mentioned I've brought up before and I'll elaborate. If your reply doesn't contain something to the effect of "couldn't have been done," "would have been hated anyway," "wasn't allowable by the premise" or "was forbidden by UPN" I'll eat my words.
Character Development:
We'll start out simply. Let's have some. They wrote what I call "inherent mobility" into the Doctor and Seven of Nine. These characters started out so contrary to the nature of general STU characters they had to be developed. The alternative would have been to leave the Doctor a jaded, unlikeable computer program the likes of which wouldn't have mattered one way or another based on his unpopularity. They had to show him warming up to the crew, growing and expanding, otherwise one would wonder why any focus was being given to him at all (and not to a replicator or... a torpedo tube or something.) The same goes for Seven of Nine. She started out as a Borg. They couldn't just leave her as a heartless drone that hated the crew or it wouldn't have made sense (though... she did hang on to those Borg phrases for the series I guess...)
These characters, in order to make sense, had to move. That they created such characters means that someone somewhere understood the idea of point A and point B and that the journey from one to the other is dramatic and interesting. And it worked. Those two characters, especially by comparison, are pretty popular. They developed.
So, now that the idea is established let's move a specific character, we'll take... Harry Kim. He has the same potential for growth written into his character. Point A is the unseasoned novice Ensign he was in the premier. Point B, hypothetically, would be a Harry Kim who was different, grown up, wiser for his experiences on Voyager. In my opinion that isn't what we got in Endgame. He seemed every bit as green then as it was in Caretaker. How would I have written the character differently? I would have had him behave as though the experiences he went through episode to episode effected him. More specific you say? Alright- how about this, I wouldn't keep making him out to be a fool with what were supposed to be humorous failed romances. Have him grow up. He and Seven came up with the Astrometrics lab. Maybe rather than telling stories about him choosing the wrong sister tell stories about his dedication to getting home leading him to study harder, work harder, take things more seriously to the point of obsession (which they mention but isn't really shown outside of him always being excited at a chance to go home more so than anybody else.) They didn't always get it wrong. They gave him the night shift and Timeless had some... interesting moments. But it was always episodic. That development wasn't carried through to what he did next. Tie one thing to the next, not in an arc, but in the same vein that was done with Nog or with Data.
That's about as specific as I can get without actually writing an episode of Voyager (or re-writing one). Now... tell me why none of that was possible or that if it was and they had I would have hated it.
Character Development:
We'll start out simply. Let's have some. They wrote what I call "inherent mobility" into the Doctor and Seven of Nine. These characters started out so contrary to the nature of general STU characters they had to be developed. The alternative would have been to leave the Doctor a jaded, unlikeable computer program the likes of which wouldn't have mattered one way or another based on his unpopularity. They had to show him warming up to the crew, growing and expanding, otherwise one would wonder why any focus was being given to him at all (and not to a replicator or... a torpedo tube or something.) The same goes for Seven of Nine. She started out as a Borg. They couldn't just leave her as a heartless drone that hated the crew or it wouldn't have made sense (though... she did hang on to those Borg phrases for the series I guess...)
These characters, in order to make sense, had to move. That they created such characters means that someone somewhere understood the idea of point A and point B and that the journey from one to the other is dramatic and interesting. And it worked. Those two characters, especially by comparison, are pretty popular. They developed.
So, now that the idea is established let's move a specific character, we'll take... Harry Kim. He has the same potential for growth written into his character. Point A is the unseasoned novice Ensign he was in the premier. Point B, hypothetically, would be a Harry Kim who was different, grown up, wiser for his experiences on Voyager. In my opinion that isn't what we got in Endgame. He seemed every bit as green then as it was in Caretaker. How would I have written the character differently? I would have had him behave as though the experiences he went through episode to episode effected him. More specific you say? Alright- how about this, I wouldn't keep making him out to be a fool with what were supposed to be humorous failed romances. Have him grow up. He and Seven came up with the Astrometrics lab. Maybe rather than telling stories about him choosing the wrong sister tell stories about his dedication to getting home leading him to study harder, work harder, take things more seriously to the point of obsession (which they mention but isn't really shown outside of him always being excited at a chance to go home more so than anybody else.) They didn't always get it wrong. They gave him the night shift and Timeless had some... interesting moments. But it was always episodic. That development wasn't carried through to what he did next. Tie one thing to the next, not in an arc, but in the same vein that was done with Nog or with Data.
That's about as specific as I can get without actually writing an episode of Voyager (or re-writing one). Now... tell me why none of that was possible or that if it was and they had I would have hated it.
-Withers-
Last edited:
Well, the whole "studious, obsessive academic" type thing combined with him being played by Wang would've made it seem like an asian geek stereotype, for starters.
Also, "grow up"? How, by having him swear off women? He wasn't exactly immature to begin with. What does "growing up" entail when the show never presented him as immature in the first place?
Now, if they had started him off as some arrogant, misogynistic, semi-racist or a coward or something THEN there's more room for growth.
Like I said, if characters already have enough character to start off with, development isn't all that necessary.
Also, "grow up"? How, by having him swear off women? He wasn't exactly immature to begin with. What does "growing up" entail when the show never presented him as immature in the first place?
Now, if they had started him off as some arrogant, misogynistic, semi-racist or a coward or something THEN there's more room for growth.
Like I said, if characters already have enough character to start off with, development isn't all that necessary.
Withers
Captain
So... making him an idiot was preferable?
"Grow up" as in "become wiser" not "pull less practical jokes."
Not everybody on board could be started from the same point. That would be one too many hostile/caustic/vitriolic characters on the show. They already had Torres, Seven and the Doctor, not to mention Neelixs behavior before Kes left. Having every single character go from ass hat to golden child would be repetitive.
He started out as a novice ensign. Essentially a blank slate. He ended the exact same way. It's like saying an unbaked pie is good enough without being baked. If a character is so awesome it doesn't need to be developed at all then the story should be told from finish to start.
All that aside; you just proved my point. You want specifics so you can say why they can't be done, regardless of the topic when it comes to Voyager. That's why there isn't elaboration beyond what has already been donated (from me anyway.) The bullet points... just take less time to type.
-Withers-
