Triaxiansilk.com

You know, Archer as a character had so much potential. It is a shame the canon writers wasted the opportunity and wasted a good actor. Still, the character had a few good moments. Like his "You can't be afraid of the wind" line.

Perhaps one can say that it is not that they dislike the chracter but how it was written. As Linda said, there was so much potential for the Archer character. But there was also so much potential for the other characters too.

For me, it was simply too much Archer and not enough of the other characters.

In all of the other Trek series they were ensemble series. Even Tos starting in the second season when Kirk, Spock and Mccoy became the focus of the series. KIrk was still the Hero but spock was a central character too and McCoy ws Comic relief.

In TNG, Picard, riker, Data and to a lesser degree Chrusher, Troi and Geordi. The three main charcters shared the series although again Picard was the (flawed) hero.

DS9, Sisko, Kira, The Ferengi Quark, bashir, DAx, The Cardassian Tailor whose name I al cannot remember. It was Sisko the hero but the othrs especially Kira who shared.

voy, Janeway, Paris, torres, the Doctor,Chakoty, Kes, later the Borg bimbo Seven of NIne and others. Ensemble, Janeway Captain hero.

But in Ent it was just Archer. No matter what Trip would do it was Archr who tok the bows at the end of the Episode. Archer could have been an outstanding Captain if he had let his subordinates do somethin g on occasion. The writers had Archer being able to do anything and knew everything. It was too much. The sries title was Enterprise not "the amazing adventures of super captain Archer."

A nice back story of Malcom or Hoshi would have been fine. T'Pol's time in San Francisco before joining Enterprise for an episode. Something other than a steady diet of Archer. I would hav eliked to have seen Archer in a desperate situation surviving by his wits alone stranded on aplanet. Not heroic but simply a human striving to survive.

SB--All of that is entirely reasonable and fair. And thought-provoking, because something occurred to me as I read your remarks about it being "just Archer," and others not sharing in the heroism. Being that this is a prequel, showing us how things came to be in Kirk's time, isn't it entirely possible that this was done on purpose to show us what an isolating thing it can be to be captain when there is no Prime Directive yet, no standard set of guidelines how to handle the many situations one is likely to encounter, and no nearby Starbases or starships to back you up (well, not until the other ship was built later, but still that's only one). They were trying to show us a time when these things didn't exist, so the captain of a ship really did have to shoulder many burdens alone. Maybe they went too far and it got annoying at times, but it may have served a real dramatic purpose.

Just a thought.

Aquarius wrote:Being that this is a prequel, showing us how things came to be in Kirk's time, isn't it entirely possible that this was done on purpose to show us what an isolating thing it can be to be captain when there is no Prime Directive yet, no standard set of guidelines how to handle the many situations one is likely to encounter, and no nearby Starbases or starships to back you up (well, not until the other ship was built later, but still that's only one). They were trying to show us a time when these things didn't exist, so the captain of a ship really did have to shoulder many burdens alone. Maybe they went too far and it got annoying at times, but it may have served a real dramatic purpose.

Just a thought.

I think this may played a role. The show was intented to show how the first Starfleet people worked in space - without any guide lines and back ups.
I remember when I watch the show together with hubs and I was getting really annoyed by the prejudice Archer displayed, he remarked that ENT takes place during the time of explorers, before Kirk. So they were likely to have more prejudice and acted (without realising) in that matter.
I still think Archer should have studied diplomacy and intercultural communicatio or used simple common sense more, but I can understand that a captain have to pave the way in some respect.
To honour that effort and because Archer is going to be an important founding father of the Federation - I can understand the emphasis on Archer. Combined with the fact that they wanted to show that Archer had flaws plus the fact that the writers may have been thinking that the captain is always right and a hero in Star Trek, you have the making of Archer.
IMHO I think the problem is Archer wasn't written consistently plus they failed to show this hero captain sometimes and simple told us. It didn't help either that the character Archer didn't make an emotional connection with me, like for example Sisko.

I definitely suspect B&B were thinking of Lewis & Clark when they cooked up Enterprise - and that would make Archer a Merriweather Lewis figure (down to the beloved dog), who was a problematic person. I think it was definitely supposed to be problematic that Archer was chosen because of his pig-headedness and his "I'm not going to bow to the Vulcans" attitude - which might have helped the mission go forward and made him popular among his crew but did not help him be a good diplomat. (Lewis famously threatened to burn down a village whose inhabitants stole his dog. They returned his dog.)

I like to extend that metaphor to T'Pol as Sacajawea - which helps from a TnT perspective - because despite the inventions of many romance novelists - Sacajawea was not romantically involved with Lewis, she was married to one of his men. She was just Lewis & Clark's guide and right hand woman.

In keeping with the spirit of the new rules, I'm busting this out into a separate thread.

honeybee wrote:I definitely suspect B&B were thinking of Lewis & Clark when they cooked up Enterprise - and that would make Archer a Merriweather Lewis figure (down to the beloved dog), who was a problematic person. I think it was definitely supposed to be problematic that Archer was chosen because of his pig-headedness and his "I'm not going to bow to the Vulcans" attitude - which might have helped the mission go forward and made him popular among his crew but did not help him be a good diplomat. (Lewis famously threatened to burn down a village whose inhabitants stole his dog. They returned his dog.)

I like to extend that metaphor to T'Pol as Sacajawea - which helps from a TnT perspective - because despite the inventions of many romance novelists - Sacajawea was not romantically involved with Lewis, she was married to one of his men. She was just Lewis & Clark's guide and right hand woman.

In keeping with the spirit of the new rules, I'm busting this out into a separate thread.

I LIKE this take on it. Really, that's all I have to say.

I think the ENT Archer suffered from a bad case of bad writing. I think too often other characters were made to look weak in order to make Archer look strong ("The Seventh", "Stigma", whole Vulcan arc.) That might probably be the reason, why many people are not overly fond of him. The term Super!Archer was coined for a reason.

My example: What if Syrran had transferred Suraks katra to T'Pol? Now that would have been a golden opportunity - have the Über-Vulcan meet the maverick that has taken 'unorthodox' to a whole new level. Instead we got to see a human getting the Vulcans back on their path, which didn't quite do it for me. He was too often used as the main protagonist, when others would have been much more suited to the job. I would say that the writers were going overboard emphasizing Archer's importance. Even two hundred years from now, you're nothing without a good team and the on-screen Archer was NOT a team-player.

Basically, he was a good captain, but his character got too much emphasis to the detriment of others. I also found Bakulas acting not quite as good as let's say Connor Trineer or John Billingsley. Somehow I always had the impression that Scott Bakula only knows 3 or 4 face expressions.

I'm just confused as to why this isn't in the non-ship thread?

Honestly, I don't buy that Archer "had to do it alone because it was new." Yes he was the first deep space Captain. But SF had been around a while, at least 50 years if not more. They had been having ships and crews long enough to know how to use them effectively. How many times did Malcolm simply want to do his job and got counter-ordered? How many times did T'Pol come up with a solution and then did not impliment it herself, then Archer got credit. Travis almost never got to do the most risky flying either. Trip at least had some level of autonomy in his own field.

But mostly I'm with Panyasan, I just got tired of being "told" how great he was. We're all know that the number 1 rule for story telling is show don't tell. But it rarely happened on screen. We were "told" Archer and T'Pol had a bond of deep respect and friendship, by V'Lar. We were "told" that Archer would be the founding father of the Federation. We were "told" he was a great leader and begining to become a great diplomat, but I never saw it. After a while, I didn't believe it.

You are right about the indian woman. she was married to Charbenau who was a guide interpreter for L&C There was no romance betwen her and any of the corp of discovery.

I guess my point was that in the other series the characters besides the Hero/Captain were developed. Background was made for them.

Too like the other series Enterprise writing was uneven. but I never thought any episode was outstanding.

In TOS the first season Kirk diid all of his thinking from his crotch. But in season two and three there were some great episodes "city at the edge of Time" "the Empath" There was one where Spock mind melded with a rock creature and he found out that the creature was defending her brood wich is why she was attacking the miners. In another Spcok meets the Female romulan Commaner. Some wonderful scenes in that one. In another Spock is thrown back in time to where the Vulcns were primative. He meets a female who cannot return to her time. He eats Meat and is intimate with her. He finaly returns to his time. Of course there were episodes that made one want to deny ever viewing Star Trek.

The other series wre about the same. Uneven writing. Some brilliant episodes and some stinkers. But in all of them the characters besides the Captain had a chance to shine.

I could never convince myself that Archer earned the loyalty of his crew. He never came across as a great man or potentially a great man. No matter what was written. I suspect that was the fault of the writers and TPTB.

In bound Archer really screwed up. Trip and t'Pol save the Enterprise. Nothing happens to Archer. He tells Trip that he won't put in his Log that Trip shot him. Not that Trip and T'Pol saved the Entrprise from a really dreadful fate.

If Archer had been a little more HUman and falible instead "Super Archer I would have really liked the character.

Archer was a Test Pilot. Probaby had degrees on Aeronautics (Sp) but that doesn't prepare him for commanding a Starship. It was never even said that he had attended Command School which would be a requirement for that type of Command.

Even the Character was not develooped that well. He loved water Polo.

In one of my stories I hinted that Archer was chosen as a politican compromise and as a token, being the living son of the legend Henry Archer. Archer hates the rumours that he is chosen "because he is son of..." instead of chosen for his own abilities. It's my way of explaining why he is trying so very hard to be a hero captain. On the other hand, having experience with some one who absolutely couldn't delegate, that person really thought he was the only one who got the talent to do the job. He meant well, but the others weren't so talented in his mind. Without him, things would go wrong. I can see some of this in Archer.

BTW: I googled for Lewis and Clark - interesting part of American history. The things you learn at this board.

honeybee wrote:(Lewis famously threatened to burn down a village whose inhabitants stole his dog. They returned his dog.)

So that's where the inspiration for ANiS came from!

You know I thought of that too KTR! I remember a Charlton Heston/Fred McMurry movie where "Clark" romanced the lady.

Panyasan you know what I really don't get... How he was so gun-ho about getting "the best people" and people he trusted, and then micro-manage like that. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, but they couldn't quite bring themselves to do it, and in the process they made him look like a fool.

Of course, he could have been an even worse fool if he'd done what Lewis did.

It's an interesting insight, but I don't know how well it served them, really. Might have just helped confuse the issue, and his character was confusing for two seasons.

I'm just confused as to why this isn't in the non-ship thread?

The thread in question was about non TnT ships, and since the discussion veered into one about Archer, I opened a new thread and moved the relevant posts. This was done so those who want to discuss non TnT ships can continue without having to wade through posts about Archer.