Why was anyone not promoted in finals
- Thread starter TEH BABA
- Start date
Maybe they were happy at the departments they were at? Promotion on a ship that small means somebody has to move on, be reassigned to another ship or have died in the line of duty?
Everybody always assumes staying an Ensign equates to being snubbed. Perhaps someone like Hoshi doesn't see it that way. She's already qualified to teach in her field and has a level of seniority being on the bridge plus was handpicked by the Captain himself. I mean she gets more responsibilty than your average no first named crewmen seen strolling the corridors.
The other possiblity is somebody like Mayweather was promoted in those 6 missing years, got involved in a crisis, did the right thing but got demoted for disobeying orders? I'm thinking the Romulan Wars (which I assume Enterprise would've covered) could have thrown a few curveballs to create conflict both outside and inside the ship.
Everybody always assumes staying an Ensign equates to being snubbed. Perhaps someone like Hoshi doesn't see it that way. She's already qualified to teach in her field and has a level of seniority being on the bridge plus was handpicked by the Captain himself. I mean she gets more responsibilty than your average no first named crewmen seen strolling the corridors.
The other possiblity is somebody like Mayweather was promoted in those 6 missing years, got involved in a crisis, did the right thing but got demoted for disobeying orders? I'm thinking the Romulan Wars (which I assume Enterprise would've covered) could have thrown a few curveballs to create conflict both outside and inside the ship.
The guy who programed the holo program fucked up the insignia.
When Voyager started Tuvok was wearing the wrong rank pins for I think half the first season. No one noticed. 
Good Will Riker
Admiral
^^^
I noticed when he was addressed as "Lieutenant Tuvok" when he clearly had the rank pips of a lieutenant commander.
Same with Tom Paris. He started out as a lieutenant senior grade at the end of "Caretaker" and then got demoted to the rank of lieutenant junior grade in the same episode where Tuovk was demoted as well.
I believe that VOY episode was "Cathexis." You can clearly see both Tuvok and Paris's rank pips getting demoted as the episode progressed. You just have to look very carefully with your "eagle viewer eyes."
I noticed when he was addressed as "Lieutenant Tuvok" when he clearly had the rank pips of a lieutenant commander.
Same with Tom Paris. He started out as a lieutenant senior grade at the end of "Caretaker" and then got demoted to the rank of lieutenant junior grade in the same episode where Tuovk was demoted as well.
I believe that VOY episode was "Cathexis." You can clearly see both Tuvok and Paris's rank pips getting demoted as the episode progressed. You just have to look very carefully with your "eagle viewer eyes."
So you might actually say that Janeway failed to promote Kim because she felt she didn't have the right to promote anybody, absent Starfleet Command clearance. The "promotion" scene for Lieutenant Commander Tuvok would be a mere restoration of the rank that she had stripped from him during the first season (presumably for his mutinous behavior in "Prime Factors").
"Cathexis" shows Paris getting demoted between shots, without further ado - but Tuvok gets demoted, re-promoted, re-demoted, re-promoted as the action switches from bridge to corridor and back. Obviously, the scenes were filmed in a different order from the one shown...
"These Are The Voyages" would work pretty well even if we ignored the 2161 timestamp. Hell, it would work better that way. The signing ceremony would then "lead" to the Federation, like Troi says, and not actually be the birth of the Federation as the general timeline would have us believe for 2161. The lack of promotions would make sense. Retiring the Enterprise to make way for better designs would make sense after just a couple of years of proving the concept (plus one unexpected year of emergency operations on Season Three), instead of after an entire decade of successful sailing.
Indeed, we only get the 2161 timestamp from Archer's claim that he met T'Pol ten years prior. But there's nothing to prove that Archer didn't meet T'Pol six or seven years before "Broken Bow".
Also, Archer said he took command ten years prior. But he didn't say command of what.
So put "TATV" to 2154 and all is fine and well. (Although actually, it should still be at least 2157, because Shran has been reputedly dead for three years.)
Timo Saloniemi
"Cathexis" shows Paris getting demoted between shots, without further ado - but Tuvok gets demoted, re-promoted, re-demoted, re-promoted as the action switches from bridge to corridor and back. Obviously, the scenes were filmed in a different order from the one shown...
"These Are The Voyages" would work pretty well even if we ignored the 2161 timestamp. Hell, it would work better that way. The signing ceremony would then "lead" to the Federation, like Troi says, and not actually be the birth of the Federation as the general timeline would have us believe for 2161. The lack of promotions would make sense. Retiring the Enterprise to make way for better designs would make sense after just a couple of years of proving the concept (plus one unexpected year of emergency operations on Season Three), instead of after an entire decade of successful sailing.
Indeed, we only get the 2161 timestamp from Archer's claim that he met T'Pol ten years prior. But there's nothing to prove that Archer didn't meet T'Pol six or seven years before "Broken Bow".
Also, Archer said he took command ten years prior. But he didn't say command of what. So put "TATV" to 2154 and all is fine and well. (Although actually, it should still be at least 2157, because Shran has been reputedly dead for three years.)
Timo Saloniemi
didn't hoshi get promoted to lieutenant commander? And whosd to say some people like Malcolm Reed didn't take up positions at Starfleet Academy teaching strategy and war tactics? We know Hoshi developed the Linguacode Translation Matrix so presumably she became head of Starfleet Communications and Linguistics.
They were heading home, at which time promotions would surely have been announced. When there aren't many ships doing such missions, there's really nowhere to go.
I'm sure the production team discussed whether to add rank pins or not, since they went to the trouble of adding metal name tags, and pieces of bridge, to show time had supposedly passed.
But the novel "The Good That Men Do" puts good use to all those little visual and scripted clues in "These Are The Voyages...", whether they were there accidentally or on purpose.
The easiest explanation is that Starfleet is still relatively small and they just don't have the personnel to be promoting everyone so easily - it's hard to run a starship properly if everyone is a Captain.
Presumably once the Federation becomes a more viable prospect then recruitment figures start jumping up.
Presumably once the Federation becomes a more viable prospect then recruitment figures start jumping up.
Another thing about Enterprise time period is that there are far less ranks.
Ensign,
one rank of Lieutenant,
then Lieutenant Commander,
and then Captain after that.
Ensign,
one rank of Lieutenant,
then Lieutenant Commander,
and then Captain after that.
Why suggest that? Just because we never saw a junior Lieutenant or a senior Commander? Doesn't make sense to me.
If UE Starfleet somehow revamped the classic rank system that all later Starfleets use, why would they have retained something as asinine as "Lieutenant Commander"? Wouldn't they have renamed that rank either "Commander" or "Lieutenant" for clarity? Or called it something new like "Master" or "Director"?
I see no reason to assume gaps in the rank scheme as such - but it is theoretically possible that there would be gaps in Starfleet. That is, at the time of ENT, out of the mere hundreds of active officers, by sheer chance none would carry the rank of Rear Admiral or full Commander.
Doesn't seem very plausible, tho. Starfleet seems to have at least dozens of large starships, with full operational crews. To not have any Commanders in there would be curious to the extreme.
(Of course, AFAIK, Tucker was always a full Commander, with the rank pins to match. So were the other Commanders of ENT, again AFAIK. Where does "Lieutenant Commander" come from?)
Timo Saloniemi
If UE Starfleet somehow revamped the classic rank system that all later Starfleets use, why would they have retained something as asinine as "Lieutenant Commander"? Wouldn't they have renamed that rank either "Commander" or "Lieutenant" for clarity? Or called it something new like "Master" or "Director"?
I see no reason to assume gaps in the rank scheme as such - but it is theoretically possible that there would be gaps in Starfleet. That is, at the time of ENT, out of the mere hundreds of active officers, by sheer chance none would carry the rank of Rear Admiral or full Commander.
Doesn't seem very plausible, tho. Starfleet seems to have at least dozens of large starships, with full operational crews. To not have any Commanders in there would be curious to the extreme.
(Of course, AFAIK, Tucker was always a full Commander, with the rank pins to match. So were the other Commanders of ENT, again AFAIK. Where does "Lieutenant Commander" come from?)
Timo Saloniemi
^I think they had Trip as a Lt Cmmdr in the character specs from before the show started, but during the show itself he was never referred to as anything other than Commander, but I think that is where the confusion comes in.
Sure, but it doesn't really give an in-ep reason which is what the opening poster seemed to be after and which I was trying to provide.
I think it's pretty well established that the majority opinion was the episode was lousy and was written poorly - does it need to be trotted out again and again as the only answer to questions raised about the episode. Or could we try and use the facts as presented in the episode to try and come up with a discussion that has a chance of being different and interesting for a change rather than the thread being another TATV bashing thread - cos I've read those.
Sure, but it doesn't really give an in-ep reason which is what the opening poster seemed to be after and which I was trying to provide.
I think it's pretty well established that the majority opinion was the episode was lousy and was written poorly - does it need to be trotted out again and again as the only answer to questions raised about the episode. Or could we try and use the facts as presented in the episode to try and come up with a discussion that has a chance of being different and interesting for a change rather than the thread being another TATV bashing thread - cos I've read those.
It's not just that they're the only 4 ranks we saw on Enterprise.
But the rank insignia was also suggestive also. There were only 4 squares for 4 ranks. With no half squares or anything like that.
RandyS said:
Not to mention more honest.
and the fact that their trying to fake being on the air for 10 years. With the hair changes etc. Obviously if Enterprise had gone on for 10 years people would look differently and probably some cast members leaving and joining.
TATV had an empty feeling because they didn't expierience 10 years on the air aswell.
Similar threads
