• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Captain is dead, long live the Captain.

If V'Las was in charge of the Vulcan government during those 90 odd years I can understand Archer's attitude, since the Vulcans were coming across as treating Earth like a semi benevolent, colonial master. And V'Las motives for running things were not in Earth's or Vulcan's best interest. It was not until Soval admitted the reason for their extreme caution was because Humans reminded them of themselves, which scared the logical shit out of them. (The incident with the Andorians proved the Vulcan government was corrupt anyway).
I suspect the other Starfleet brass shared Archer's views but were more professional in not displaying it. Following the Vulcan High command's advice blindly would not have made Archer a good captain either.

I think that's a very good point about V'Las, and I also agree that some other Starfleet brass shared Archer's view, and that's why Archer got the job despite Vulcan misgivings about him. While Vulcans were paternalistic, and did seem to be impeding Earth's progress into space, they weren't outright stopping it. Vulcans did have some sway over humanity, but I don't know if it's a colonial relationship. Albeit, it didn't have to technically be that to effect how Archer saw it and reacted to the Vulcans.

Those things being said, I didn't think Archer's initial attitude toward the Vulcans was justified, and the writing was meant to support his biases instead of fully exploring them and ultimately banishing them. Granted, T'Pol was on the ship as a counter, but in general she eventually came around more to the human point of view, which is typical for Trek, which often is a very homosapien's club when it comes to viewpoints . Also, I have to wonder if V'Las wasn't a smart creation of Manny Coto in the fourth season, to align ENT Vulcans more with TOS Vulcans and that the Vulcan Reformation idea or the corruption likely abetted by V'Las wasn't something long thought of beforehand by Berman and Braga. That it was just something Coto, etc. came up with and that B&B just envisioned the Vulcans as more impediments to Archer and Earth perhaps in an attempt to have some conflict, drama, and ultimately to show how awesome humanity is.

I think making Archer a boomer would've been a great idea. It would've given him more concrete experience he could use to counter T'Pol or the Vulcan way of doing/see things more than out of a sense of pique. I felt Mayweather's experience was often underutilized, which oddly enough was because T'Pol had that knowledge from Vulcan resources, so the show understood the value and easiness of using Vulcan knowledge while sometimes having Archer, etc. discount it at the same time. If I had my druthers, I don't even know if I would've included T'Pol on the ship. If the goal was the human adventure, then have an all human crew, which would've been another thing to help make it stand out from other Trek shows, and reinforce the idea that Earth was taking off the training wheels. Though if T'Pol had to be on the ship, have her be a first contact officer or the communications officer, where she could have a knowledge of various alien cultures or languages.
 
Last edited:
^From my perspective humanity never came across as 'awesome' in the ENT era, its a shame we never got a season 4 to 7 to see humans mature enough to be the top dog in the Federation. (Something I find annoying anyway). I do wonder from an in universe perspective if AG Robinson was the Captain if Daniel's would have showed up and told him to resign the post since the timeline showed he was meant to die in a mountain climbing accident lol
 
he could've spent time training on Vulcan with their diplomatic corps to gain insight into other cultures, so as to broaden his mind and prepare him for what's out there, or been assigned to the Earth embassy on Denobula or another other planets they have alliances with, to gain experience with other cultures to be more open minded.

This makes complete sense if Archer was a real person :), but as a TV character, dramatically it's not a very exciting backstory -- presenting the audience with a completely trained, eminently qualified expert on interstellar relations. Far better dramatically to see the captain and crew learning on the job and combining their various individual talents so that we, the audience, can witness the journey. It also meant that other characters, such as T'Pol with her cautious Vulcan experience and the delightful Phlox with his compassionate Denobulan enthusiasm for all things had significant roles to play too.

Making Archer the Boomer might've made him a better character, someone born to space, who knows more about it than any of the other humans onboard, who has already made contacts with some other worlds, and is well-versed in alien cultures and encounters.

Agreed, this would have been an interesting take on a Captain character, but it wasn't the story they were telling. I liked the episodes, few though they were, which showed us Travis' Boomer perspective, but I feel like I was one of the few who appreciated his character, so maybe this wouldn't have pleased audiences either. And also, ditto my point about writing a series about early human space exploration where the Captain has done most of his learning before we meet him. To quote Trip from "The Andorian Incident", Where's the exploration in going places people have already been?"
 
Last edited:
^From my perspective humanity never came across as 'awesome' in the ENT era, its a shame we never got a season 4 to 7 to see humans mature enough to be the top dog in the Federation. (Something I find annoying anyway). I do wonder from an in universe perspective if AG Robinson was the Captain if Daniel's would have showed up and told him to resign the post since the timeline showed he was meant to die in a mountain climbing accident lol

I was being facetious about humanity being 'awesome'. I did find it a fault of Trek across the board that all of the series-to some extent-made humanity the end all/be all it seems, that they centered Earth and humanity. I mean, it's a show created by humans, about the human experience, but from an in-universe perspective I wish more credit sometimes had been given to alien cultures, histories, and perspectives. That human concepts of morality, etc., were not the only or the most valid ones out there, or didn't have to be in a galaxy filled with various species, many with civilizations far more advanced or older than any on Earth.

I could see the prequel era being place to challenge humans' notions about themselves and their 'importance' as it were in ways different and more visceral than what we got in the other Trek shows, where the Federation had already formed. Unfortunately, there was the tendency to make the humans are right a default for ENT as well. And then the writing made sure to reinforce that by making the Vulcans jerks. To be fair, DS9 also made Vulcans jerks, but it wasn't as grating there since they were only guest characters from time to time.
 
I did find it a fault of Trek across the board that all of the series-to some extent-made humanity the end all/be all it seems, that they centered Earth and humanity
Because Trek was geared for a watching US audience, so swap 'humanity (eventually 'The Federation') is awesome' for 'the USA way of life is awesome'.
Star Trek is based on in universe Terran privilege mirroring real life Western privilege.
This is one of my disappointments with Discovery. Too many humans in the crew and that privilege is never addressed by the main cast.
It took a Klingon leader to point it out in TUC.
 
Because Trek was geared for a watching US audience, so swap 'humanity (eventually 'The Federation') is awesome' for 'the USA way of life is awesome'.
Star Trek is based on in universe Terran privilege mirroring real life Western privilege.

While I agree that Trek is human-centric (after all, it was at it's heart an examination of humankind), I disagree that the general message was that the human way or "The Federation" is awesome. On the contrary, TOS set about to examine the many ways in which man is flawed, and specifically highlighted our inherent over-emotionalism, obsessions, primal natures and racism to name but a few examples. Sometimes these traits were examined via alien characters with different moral standards or behaviours reflecting on humanity, sometimes using alien characters or situations as allegories for human failings, and sometimes they were examined via flaws in our heroes themselves.

TNG had a general, over-arching theme that man should, and to some extent had, moved beyond material wealth to value investing in ones own knowledge and capabilities and ENT in particular used other characters, like the Vulcans, to highlight Captain Archer's inexperience, misplaced pride, suspicions and inadequacies. Archer (like humanity) needed to overcome many of his faults in order to seek out alliances with other races to meet the challenges of later seasons.

What Trek generally tried to do however was highlight humanity's more valuable and laudable capabilities and point out where we had a lot of room for growth -- and the possibilities of human potential.
 
I would have been pissed if they killed Archer. Bakula was one of the reasons I started watching the show. That said, I probably would have kept watching.
 
The Vulcans always said Mankind wasnt ready to be out there, and largly it was true. The Enterprise crew cant seem to get further that half an astral unit without being attacked, getting kidnapped, causing a diplomatic incident, getting pregnant or generally knocking seven bells out of their own starship!
But therin lies the story. Archer is indeed an amateur and makes many mistakes. It how humans learn. You should read some biographies of famous explorers and war heroes. When you go somewhere 'where no one has gone before', there are no experts!
 
Captain Sam Beckett played by Bott Spatula. He's an expert on time travel and a doctor and some other stuff probably. He's one cool dude.
behind-the-candelabra.45.50%20AM.jpg
 
I would have been okay with them killing Archer. I was very let down with Archer because I was a big fan of "Quantum Leap." As for who to replace him. Well why not find out Starfleet has a little known regulation that when a Captain dies if he or she is survived by a pet, said pet inherits anything his or her owner once had including their job. That means Porthos becomes Captain in season 7 and also this is the year when Trip invents a tech that allows humans to hear animals thoughts but do to comedy reasons it doesn't work for Vulcans so T'Pol is always confused about what is going on.

Jason
 
I liked Jonathan Archer, seemed a decent chap
Killing him off for some other dude would have been crass stupidity
Archers character developed over 4 seasons, the same as every other Trek Captain
I think Bakula was dealt a bum deal by some of the writing
 
^
I do agree that the writing wasn't there for Bakula/Archer.

There was some discussion or speculation about Patrick Stewart leaving TNG and Riker becoming captain with Shelby as his first officer for the fourth season, so the idea of replacing a captain in the midst of a show's run would not have been too unique to Enterprise, if that was the route discussed. And we did see Sisko's sacrifice in the DS9 series finale, though it was set up for him to return, so even the idea of a captain dying (sort of) on a Trek series isn't without some precedent.

I like Bakula, but was so-so on Archer, and I would've been fine with them killing the character or having him lost in space, presumed dead perhaps, or something along that line. Keeping Archer on the show did not stave off cancellation. Trip was a more dynamic character than Archer. He had the best arc of the ENT characters, he grew more than Archer did, and I think we still could've gotten the stumbling, awkward forays into space under Trip as we did with Archer. It was telling to me that they decided to kill off Trip in the series finale, because he was the heart of the show, and they ripped that heart out in the finale. Perhaps Berman and Braga reasoned that Trip's death would mean more than Archer's or any other cast members.
 
^
I do agree that the writing wasn't there for Bakula/Archer.

There was some discussion or speculation about Patrick Stewart leaving TNG and Riker becoming captain with Shelby as his first officer for the fourth season, so the idea of replacing a captain in the midst of a show's run would not have been too unique to Enterprise, if that was the route discussed. And we did see Sisko's sacrifice in the DS9 series finale, though it was set up for him to return, so even the idea of a captain dying (sort of) on a Trek series isn't without some precedent.

I like Bakula, but was so-so on Archer, and I would've been fine with them killing the character or having him lost in space, presumed dead perhaps, or something along that line. Keeping Archer on the show did not stave off cancellation. Trip was a more dynamic character than Archer. He had the best arc of the ENT characters, he grew more than Archer did, and I think we still could've gotten the stumbling, awkward forays into space under Trip as we did with Archer. It was telling to me that they decided to kill off Trip in the series finale, because he was the heart of the show, and they ripped that heart out in the finale. Perhaps Berman and Braga reasoned that Trip's death would mean more than Archer's or any other cast members.

I think killing off Trip was unforgivable
Truly astounding
 
^^Same. If only on a purely structural level, it was terribly ineffective storytelling.

But if Archer died - say, at the end of the Xindi arc - he damn well better have a good death, a hero's death where he dies to save the whole universe. And people mourn and stuff, like actual people do, not badly written holograms. :ack:

Not that he does something insipid like slit his own throat and die to stop Dolim because There Is No Other Way!!1!, even though Malcolm is standing there with a phase cannon and coulda picked Dolim off and taken out the weapon with one hand tied behind his back and sipping afternoon tea with the other, without anyone suffering so much as a hangnail. Handy safety tip: that is not a good death.
 
I think killing off Trip was unforgivable
Truly astounding

Yeah. It was a head scratcher, totally unnecessary. I was glad at first that Trek Lit. undid Trip's death, though I do feel they started shoehorning the character into stories too much.
 
^^Same. If only on a purely structural level, it was terribly ineffective storytelling.

But if Archer died - say, at the end of the Xindi arc - he damn well better have a good death, a hero's death where he dies to save the whole universe. And people mourn and stuff, like actual people do, not badly written holograms. :ack:

Not that he does something insipid like slit his own throat and die to stop Dolim because There Is No Other Way!!1!, even though Malcolm is standing there with a phase cannon and coulda picked Dolim off and taken out the weapon with one hand tied behind his back and sipping afternoon tea with the other, without anyone suffering so much as a hangnail. Handy safety tip: that is not a good death.

A noble sacrifice from Archer at the end of Season 3 would've worked for me. They even had the Temporal Cold War cheat to use to keep him alive yet taken or stuck in another time, so they could've brought him back if warranted.
 
Yeah. It was a head scratcher, totally unnecessary. I was glad at first that Trek Lit. undid Trip's death, though I do feel they started shoehorning the character into stories too much.
Ive never read any stuff like that, I presume Fanstuff.
It would be nice to undo Trips demise, but unfortunately impossible, unless it was all a dream, or subtle scam.
 
The problem is that by the end of season 3, the show had so many problems, that it really wouldn't have mattered. I don't think a new captain could have saved the show.

The whole premise didn't work for me. They didn't have the right team.

I think they set the show too far away from TOS and didn't bother using what we ACTUALLY knew about this time period as a guide.

100 years before TOS was so limiting so when they stretched those limitations, they basically just violated canon, and pissed people off more.

I think they just had the wrong team at that point. Rick Berman and Brannon Braga really were done by Voyager, and THAT show wasn't even that good, so giving them another series was a mistake in my opinion.

Prequels were the rage at the time, and I didn't have a problem with a prequel--but THIS prequel bothered me.

I would have taken a cue from Diane Carey and done a show on the original Enterprise, with Captain April. Set it maybe 20 years before TOS rather than 100. The Enterprise was brand spanking new. USE the clunky props, but give it that early 2000s revamp like they did when we saw the Constitution class ships in the Berman era and they looked terrific.

Borrow from Diane Carey and bring in George Kirk as chief of security. You could have a Picard like captain AND a Kirk like character.

The familiar ship, a familiar name would have immediately brought in good will, and it was close enough to TOS to be able to follow the canon well.

Then just do a Star Trek show.

I think in the 4th season, they finally hired the right creative team, but they were stuck on a show whose premise just failed. You can only do so much.
 
Ive never read any stuff like that, I presume Fanstuff.
It would be nice to undo Trips demise, but unfortunately impossible, unless it was all a dream, or subtle scam.

Yes, it is fan stuff, though officially licensed fan stuff. I do recommend you check out the novel The Good That Men Do. I thought it got around Trip's death pretty well. But then the character overstayed his welcomed return as the novels went on IMO.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top