I don't think so. Harry was clearly created to be like Kes, a character who grows and changes over time. His single pip and zero years seniority had "starting point on a journey" written all over it. Too bad he wound up wandering in circles for seven years. I think they typically do, to an extent. I think there's some flexibility, with evolutions introduced along the way. Eliminating Seska, Jonas, and Suder was effectively the writers committing that VOY would now be TNG Lite. That may also be where they committed to have Harry stagnate instead of grow.
Well, either it's good, old Janeway who are becoming schizophrenic or simply bad writing! You know which option I choose! I agree on that. Let's go back to question one and my comments there. I'm now quoting myself: "Well, either it's good, old Janeway who are becoming schizophrenic or simply bad writing! You know which option I choose!" Thank you very much, thank you very much and thank you very much indeed!
I don't want to put down Harry or criticize him too much because I find him likeable (despite the fact that I can joke about him sometimes) and he did have potential to become a great character. I think that the original plan (if they had one) was to have this young, green Ensign as some sort of character young kids could identify with (like Wesley Crusher and Jake Sisko) and that he was supposed to be some sort of computer genius who could come up with good solutions on difficult computer problems. However, what he did end up as was more the whipping boy of the series, the guy who always ends up in trouble and gets beaten up. That could be seen in episodes like Emanations, The Thaw and most of all The Chute where the main purpose with the episode seem to have been to see Kim being beaten up. maybe Favorite Son and Deadlock can be named in that category too. Other examples where he's not beaten up but makes a fool of himself are Resolutions and Alter Ego, maybe also Non Sequitur, even if that episode actually is a good Kim episode. Many times, Kim comes out as a little lost boy who almost breaks int tears every time an attempt to get home fails. He's actually much better in many of the early Voyager books where he's actually doing something and doing what he should do quite good. Unfortunately the "whipping boy" syndrome is visible in some books too. In six of the early Voyager books, Kim ends up in sickbay. See the Kes Website's book page for further details. However, Kim makes a better impression in the books than in the TV episodes. A pity because Kim did have potential but it was never really used. And his musical taste isn't that bad after all!
I remember reading a Voyager parody episode back in the days when it was airing for the first time, which ended with an exterior shot of Voyager sauntering through an alien system, with Kim's fading voice in the background : 'Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?' so apparently, he made that impression. And yes, perhaps he ended up the whipping boy of the series, but I still think he got a better deal than Chakotay, who basically became a figurant with no real character traits to speak of.
When you said it best, quoting yourself is eminently logical. That could have been made to work, especially early on. Poor, naive young ensign right out of the Academy, finds himself in over his head. Have him struggle and get pounded on for a couple of years, then have him grow stronger and more capable, and more confident. Give him a journey, instead of a holding pattern. And if he was always like that, it would have worked. But 98% of the time, Harry was a trained, capable, effective officer who held his own, even at senior staff meetings. He only reverted to that little lost boy when story elements required it. I could have lived with that in itself... TOS and TNG also had "back burner" characters, after all. All they had to do, as indicated on page 1 of this topic, was have him turn up in "Night" with a hollow pip on his collar.
I was about to counter with an argument, but I had decided to discuss something else. It seems apparent to me that "VOY" will always be one of the scapegoats of the Trek franchise. Not because it's worse than the other shows, but because, like "DIS", its lead was a woman. I now realize that when it comes to the Star Trek fandom, it's very sexist, unlike the Star Wars fandom, which tends to be more racist than sexist. All of these complaints strike me as very shallow and not worth taking seriously. I've encountered better complaints about this show . . . from me. And "VOY" is not the only Trek show I have complained about. I've complained about every series I have seen. But I've noticed that very few are willing to consider any complaints lodged at "TOS", "TNG", SNW" and "DS9". And I'm sorry, but I don't regard any of them as being better than "VOY". Nor do I regard "VOY" as being better than them. As a whole, I believe the Trek is basically a franchise that has never been able to evolve in terms of writing . . . no matter how hard it tries. Even when it looks as if it's getting better, the franchise ends up failing to achieve its potential. And I'm including those shows that the fans like to put on their pedestals. This is why I consider the constant complaints about "VOY" (and "DIS") to be a joke. The only crew member aboard Voyager who had a real promotion was Tuvok in early Season 4. That's it. Tom Paris never really received a promotion. He merely regained his old rank after being demoted. And I'm supposed to take these complaints about Harry Kim not receiving a promotion seriously? I'm sorry, but I can't.
If you read the original subject discussed here, it had less than nothing to do with sexism. Indeed, I adore Captain Janeway, I think that the character Kate Mulgrew brought to life balanced intellect, command chops, and humanity incredibly well. Mulgrew, Ryan, Picardo, and the rest of the cast might have been victims of writing that was almost criminally sloppy, but they managed to make Voyager a strong entry into the franchise despite it. I don't complain about DIS because it's a show that targets an audience other than myself: people who like 21st century TV, dark and gritty and serialized. I will let them decide if it's good or not. And I will not make you; we can disagree respectfully on the subject. And in any case, my complaints are not directed at you.
I mean, I have no doubt that's the case for some but I doubt very much it is all. I don't like Voyager because I am not engaged with the characters. Any meaningful conflict is ended by the end of the premiere. And I'll say this because I don't care for TNG or ENT either, and I enjoy Discovery even though it has its struggles and inconsistences, primarily due to changes in production staff. So, while some may treat Voyager as a scapegoat, saying all of it is due to sexism is painting with a broad strokes that might not be accurate. Indeed. Janeway is memorable and commands the ship fine. The writing just does a great disservice to the character because of inconsistencies.
VOY was riddled with them. Some would have required massive rewriting and reshooting to fix. The ones I describe in this topic were simple fixes.
Oh please, don't draw the "gender card" now. First of all, I actually like Voyager. At least the three first seasons, despite certain flaws here and there. Voyager, (together with NCIS and CSI New York) are one of the few series where I took an immediate liking to ALL the main characters which seldoms happens for me, even with series I really like. And one of them is Captain Janeway who also is No: 4 on my favorite Voyager character list after Kes, Chakotay and Paris. My criticism against Janeway have more to do with how the writers made her in later seasons than the character itself. And my criticizm against Voyager have sometthing to do with that too. As I see it, Voyager was a victim of bad writing, not a female captain. Whet it comes to Star Trek Discovery, it's another story. That series is simply bad. All of it! The characters, the stories, the doom-and-gloom scenario so typical for series made after 2000.
I keep drawing the "gender card", because I have no other explanation for this excessive criticism. Why continue to target "Voyager" and "Discovery" more than the other shows? Why continue to target the only two series with a female lead, when other Trek shows have their fair share of flawed writing? None of them are perfect. And if I must be brutally honest, despite being a fan of the franchise, I keep noticing the flaws. In all of the shows. Even during my re-watch of shows like "TNG" or "DS9", I cannot count the number of times I find myself skipping episodes that I had previously decided that I dislike. Well, it's your opinion. And I'm certain it is the opinion of many others. But it's an opinion that I don't share. I admit that I don't really care for Seasons 3 and 4 of "DIS", but I do like Season 2, despite Anson Mount's presence. And Season 1 of "DIS" is a big favorite of mine. I realize that many like to put "DS9" on a pedestal, but I barely liked its Season 6 and genuinely disliked Season 7. I feel the same about "TNG" and have to include the latter's first season as another I disliked. I can barely tolerate Season 1 of "VOY" and feel that its Season 6 is rather boring. As far as I'm concerned, the first season of "TOS" is the only one I genuinely like. I have mixed feelings about its Season 2 and dislike Season 3. The only season of "ENT" I have truly liked was Season 3, even if it had felt a bit too long. My feelings for Seasons 1 and 2 are mixed. And I dislike Season 4. I don't know what to make of "PIC". I don't know whether to like it or not. As for "SNW", I've only seen a few episodes. But I don't see what the big deal is. It's seems like an attempt to remake "TOS", but with better special effects. The only episode that seemed interesting to me was the one about Spock and his fiancée. Also, I I feel that Anson Mount has to be the most boring lead in any Trek show. That is an ironic thing for me to say, considering how impressed I had felt about his work in "Hell on Wheels". So, when I constantly see post after post putting down either "VOY", "DIS" or both - the only two series with female leads - and recall my issues with not only those two series, but also the others in the franchise; I cannot help but pull the "gender card".
All series have their weaker points. I'm not talking about weak episodes since every series has some atrocious ones. I mean things that are structurally weaker. For example, TNG is a bit too rigid for my tastes with starfleet officers that are simply too cardboard perfect and 'uptight'. Voyager definitely is better in that area, and in infusing some levity in 'everyday life' situations on board a starship. DS9 could sometimes veer too much into soap opera territory, and mysticism (the Final Battle Between Good and Evil, personified in Dukat -magically transformed back into a Cardassian for the big occasion at the very end- and Sisko, anyone?), even though I still think it's a great series. The early Voyager seasons (1-3) were fairly OK (not flawless), later ones suffered a bit from over reliance on three characters (Janeway, EMH, 7) and giving the other characters not enough screen time. And inconsistent writing (either in characterisation or technical stuff), which is the particular topic of this thread. And of course other shows had inconsistencies too. Data for example, who used contractions in the first season (or perhaps 2) until he suddenly was incapable of that. His cat Spot inexplicably changing gender (though of course that could have been a second cat with the same name). Etc. I generally like DIS fine (the three seasons I've seen at least), though I don't still quite know how to 'place' it in the mold of more traditional Trek series.
Let's examine a couple of my criticisms, to see why there are no comparable ones regarding other series. Unlimited torpedoes: The Enterprise had over 200 aboard, and easy resupply. We don't know if DS9 actually had 5000, but it's a safe bet they had a lot of them, and access to more. Voyager specifically said they had 38 and "no way to replace them". I actually have a comparablecomplaint about another series; I'm still pissed off about them adopting the same "phaser/photon torpedo" weapon set that was still in use 200 years later, on "Enterprise". And I have regularly mentioned this, despite the show's decidedly male captain. Harry's rank: On TNG, every character save one was either promoted to a higher rank or (in the case of Riker and Picard) offered promotion but declined. Data was the only character shafted, and YES, I do complain about him as well. He should have made commander, just as Harry deserved to be a lieutenant. And just as I complain about Janeway shutting Harry down in "Nightingale", I express similar distaste for Data having to call Deanna "sir" in "Thine Own Self". And don't get me started about Boimler, who was demoted for no reason at all, or Mayweather, who was probably the most competent person on the NX-01 and should have been an El-tee by "Home". In short, I point out when any character gets shafted, not just that particular one. On DS9, there's nothing for me to complain about: everyone ranked up appropriately. Self Destruct: No other ship had a one-person self destruct protocol... Spoiler Aside from the Stargazer in Picard Season 2. And that had not happened when I posted this. And I still maintain that it's an incredibly bad idea. No one person should be able to simply blow a starship and its crew to smithereens. Not Kirk. Not Picard. Not Janeway. No one.
With all due respect, I find it quite annoying when people throw in a gender issue when not one post about reasons why either VOYAGER or DISCOVERY mentions anything regarding either lead being a woman. Same goes for when anyone voices any criticism of DS9 and DISCOVERY and call it a race issue. Especially when the criticisms are legitimate, like VOYAGER not following their own limitations (or at least not explaining the change, which by that point in the franchise there is no excuse), inconsistent writing (granted there are episodes in all shows that are guilty of this, but VOYAGER seems to be the one that did it the most except maybe TOS, but at least TOS has the excuse of the era it was produced), or ignoring almost half your lead cast after season 4 (ENTERPRISE was also guilty of this, but it started that trend in season 1). Or DISCO, where you have the entire bridge crew mostly ignored (which they did improve upon slightly in season 2 onward), the overreliance of season long arcs (which is my chief problem with the show, as well as PICARD), or not giving the characters more room to breath (meaning having episodes that are just character stories with smaller stakes and not 'end of the universe' stakes because I watch a show because I care about the characters), which I will concede that is directly tied to the season arc reliance. While I don't personally agree with some of the criticisms about DS9 (too many light episodes in the war, 'good vs. evil' aspect of the Prophets/pah-wraiths, for instance), I can understand why some might feel that way. I will defend some of those decisions, or not if I agree with you, but I certainly won't call someone out on being sexist or racist because they are giving criticism about my favorite ST series. I'll agree to disagree and move on. But I just cannot stand people that simply throw those cards in when not a single point is raised that hints at it. I've said it before and I'll say it again... it's that kind of narrowmindedness and rigid thinking and assuming that is a huge reason why there are so many problems in the world today. And it certainly is not what STAR TREK is about. I find it sad, and frankly embarassing, that fans of this franchise would resort to such tactics.
On this subject....I just want to make one comment, with all due respect. It seems to me when a thread about hating Janeway goes on for almost 1,000 posts it’s understandably interpreted as male chauvinism or sexism. If I were a moderator (and I was one for a couple years on another forum) I’d say enough already, time to lock this down.
Well, given that the subject of anti-Janeway hate has surfaced here, maybe it's more prudent to keep that topic open and simply suggest that further discussion of that particular subject take place there.
If there were a lot of anti-Janeway criticisms here, I might agree. But since a majority of the criticisms have not even mentioned her, like static characters and no explanations of things like Kim's rank or sudden endless resources, it's absurd to call it sexism. Now, if there are anti-Janeway criticisms, then like Oddish mentions, another thread should be started for that subject and be talked about there. Personally, l've always liked her, just was against some of her decisions, exactly like I have been against some decisions of ALL the other captains. (I know I've made a detailed post on that somewhere, I just don't remember which thread.) But yes. Let's just keep quiet and allow others to call out sexism where there is none. I've said my piece on this subject and am moving on.
Even when she made a decision I don't agree with, there was always a reasonable explanation for doing so. Well, almost always.
In this thread, there definitely is not. I went back and checked this thread, and do you know how many complaints there were about Janeway herself? ZERO. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE. I did find a post that had her dialogue in "THIRTY DAYS" altered to make solitary confinement not seem so harsh, but the reason for that was because the subject of that complaint was about the inhumaneness of the phrasing, not of Janeway herself. So yes, I'm calling bullshit on your calling out of it. Next time, try reading the content first before throwing out 'isms'. Can we just move on from this subject?