What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

So.....

People keep comparing Archer to all the other on screen captains we had and they keep saying 'he was so bad because he made mistakes they never made'. Well duh!!!
He's literally the first interstellar commanding officer Earth (not the UFP Starfleet) ever send out there. They have literally no clue what to expect. They needed someone with audacity and attitude but also humble enough to be willing to learn. He himself didn't realize he was that last part, his CO's saw that. And he lived up to it. When he needed to, he learned from his mistakes and took those lessons for the next time.
Archer was LITERALLY WRITTEN TO BE FLAWED!!!!! Because these are the people that needed to learn what NOT to do, so the hero's we know from TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, DSC, SNW, LD, PRO.... They all learned from the mistakes these people NEEDED to make. That is what exploring the human frontier is all about. That is what Star Trek is about.

 

Archer, for me, came across as utterly petulant which is a quality I just don’t find appealing in a captain.

The real failing with Enterprise was the writing. You can’t have good characters without good writing, regardless of how much the actors try. I know the show has been critically reappraised by the fans in recent years but for me I’m afraid it’s still every bit a misconceived, poorly executed drudge.

 

I think most (or at least many) people who had/have issues with Archer have more issues with the performance and the writing. I felt that Bakula was both miscast and poorly written at the time. As others have noted, he and the writers seemed to have reached an understanding sometime during S2 or S3. YMMV, of course.

 

He's not a terrible captain because of bad decisions about random sci-fi-isms that he couldn't have anticipated.

He's a terrible captain because he's a terrible leader. Wildly indecisive. Treats his crew like shit repeatedly. Deeply selfish and with very little understanding of setting priorities or dealing with people who are different from him.

All of these are skills actual humans on Earth have needed to use for centuries, if not millenia, and it's laughably stupid that Archer is supposedly the best candidate the United Earth fleet could find for such an important position. Even worse that it's repeatedly hinted the primary reason he's in the running for it at all is because his dad invented the engine and he tested it.

And with the way his interactions with the crew and the aliens were written, the fact that we're seriously expected to believe his crew all love him and he's personally the primary reason why Vulcans and Andorians no longer hate each other anymore is genuinely the most unrealistic thing to ever come out of this franchise (which features literally impossible science on a regular basis).

 

I disagree, but that's politics for you. Nothing in your list was his fault.

 

The qualities I liked about Archer, and I thought the writers did a great job in getting across with Enterprise, is that I think he comes across as genuinely curious about what lies "beyond the farthest star," and he seems honestly disappointed when they encounter hostility.

I really feel that Bakula sells a disappointment in the character when the Xindi attack Earth and he's having to deal with a dumbass like Duras stalking him. It's not what he signed up for. He'd much rather learn about an alien culture, go the extra mile trying to get a Vulcan captain to dinner to have a real conversation and be disappointed when that Vulcan is a dick that sits silent, than be in a phaser fight.

I also think a key aspect they really get across about humanity, and why T'Pol , Soval, and Shran came to be on "our" side, is that once you're our friend, we'll walk through fire for you.

 

(Would probably do me some good...)
Anyway,'let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing it does not necessarily follow that we must do that thing.'

 

Add me to the controversial "Archer is great" team. I'm also a huge Lorca fan.

*runs*

 

Ok.

But would a Federation citizen, particularly on Earth, care? That seems to be the question here.

 

A similar line was said by Ian Malcolm, in the first "Jurassic Park". When Mr. Hammond tries explaining why he brought back dinosaurs, Malcolm's reply is pretty much on the nose. He says flat-out, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

 

Yeah,I agree that Archer was an explorer at heart that became frustrated by events that effectively prevented exploration.
A direct demonstration of the enigma that is Starfleet..military or exploration bureau?
And at the end of the day he (Archer) put aside all that to become effectively a politician forging the nascent UFP.

 

That line in JP wasn't spoken by Kurtwood Smith....

 

I'm confused. He said the line (nearly quoted accurately) was spoken by Jeff Goldblum's character, which it was.

 

There are times—like now—when I miss vBulletin's nested comments. It was easier to follow a single conversation amongst the many in a thread.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/wha...r-trek-opinions.304751/page-956#post-14791151

 

It's a tangent, maybe even an off-topic tangent, but it's still true.

Anyway, Kirk FTW. James T.

 

He was President of the Federation?

 

Not to my knowledge, but we were discussing GOAT and WOAT captains as recently as *checks notes* this page, so....

 

I know but the comment I made that started all this off was dropped as everyone was talking about Fed Presidents. Kurtwood Smith was my choice.
And I do happen to agree with you about JTK.