And as I said, Archer and T'Pol didn't really have a great friendship either. We got told it a few times, but nothing actually seen on screen showed friendship between them.
I personally saw a lovely friendship between Archer and T'Pol that really enhanced my enjoyment of the show. Something I've learned over the years is that chemistry really is in the eye of the beholder. I find it interesting though to read the views of people who see chemistry in couples (both in Enterprise and other shows) that didn't strike me when I watched the show first time around. I try to keep it in mind when I'm rewatching, particularly if a scene is coming up that others have listed as a favourite but that didn't necessarily make an impact with me the first time I saw it.
^ Me, too on all accounts. You know, even after all these years though I still don't see "the other side." I suppose it's too ingrained at this point. It'd be like the CEO of Coca Cola suddenly discovering Pepsi was better.
It probably doesn't 'help' that I like Bakula based on his Quantum Leap work whereas I have no attachment to the actor who played Trip.
So? Is that all you base your 'ship preference on? That since you like the actor you want his character to end up with the "ship's babe"? Wow. It's fun knowing these things.
Back in the heyday of the 'shipper wars, preference for one actor over another did seem to be a big factor for some people in their 'ship preference. There used to be just as much fighting over which actor/character was 'better' as well as which 'ship. It seems to be quite common actually from what I've seen on boards for other shows.
I think the shipper wars were greatly exaggerated. That's probably another topic. And as to the preference for actors, really? I think a myriad issues cause people to like one ship vs. another, not just actor or character preference. I think among the reasons are perceived chemistry, ideas about what constitutes romantic feelings/relationships, thoughts about whether it should fit within the Trek lore, etc. I betcha a small contingent are just "I like Connor/I like Scott" best types. Might be an interesting poll. I do wonder if many of the guys on this board see themselves as Trip, and thus like that ship best. Hard to tell. And on this board I've been surprised that people who prefer Scott Bakula, the actor, liked him with no one and may've been Trip/T'Pol fans.
Well I personally have no bias against SB as an actor, in fact you'll see me defend him whenever the subject of recasting comes up, and CT was completely unknown to me prior to me starting to watch the show, so it's not a matter of actor bias for me. I did find Trip more likable and relatable than Archer, but if they paired T'Pol with Archer in a way that was believable and not demeaning to her character at all, I'd have nothing to say about it beyond the comment about how it's typical that women seem to go for the jerk instead of the nice guy. Chemistry would be a big factor too, and since JB didn't have any with SB, and did with CT, that worked for me. TnT as a 'ship wasn't perfect by any means, but it was more believable and worked better than any of the attempts the writers made at forcing A/T'P on us. One of those things being the old "show don't tell" method of writing, which was completely lacking in even a friendship between Archer and T'Pol.
I was absolutely thrilled when I found out Scott was going to be on Star Trek. But I never derived my opinion of Archer from a character on another series. And just because I'd never heard of any of the other stars before, didn't mean I was going to blindly worship Archer and dismiss the rest. So, when Captain Archer told T'Pol, who was barely half his size, that he was fighting the urge to "knock her on her ass," he lost me.** He should be flawed, yes, but he was written as an obnoxious jerk and that was a stupid way to introduce the central character of the show. The writers did give us evidence of developing friendship between Archer and T'Pol through their actions, ... But, frankly, I rarely picked up on any chemistry. **Yeah, I know T'Pol is Vulcan and could have killed him if he had taken a swing, but you know what? He was supposed to be "an officer and a gentleman." Whatever his issues were, he should have shown more restraint.
Nah, I think the "knock you on your ass" comment suited his character. An officer and a gentleman? I saw the entire crew as still transitioning from war to explorer state, and though they made so much progress, there's still hints of "us"... So I expected everyone to get a little gangster every now and then... I liked Archer's character alot.
I think his statement is greatly misunderstood. She commented about how violent the humans were and his comment back ("knock you on your ass") was ironic: let me show you violent. I guess lost humor. The fact that she was more powerful, as your comment indicates as the bottom, reinforced he couldn't hurt her. And I believe he was a gentleman in the traditional sense of the word -- he frequently let his female officers walk in front of him through doors. I liked Archer, too. I guess in this instance I got what Braga was trying to do and appreciated it.
I'll put it out that I prefer T/T. I like Scott Bakula the actor and love Archer. I agree that the "knock her on her ass" comment was a humorous, ironic comment. It struck me that Archer was taking a verbal jab at the Vulcans rather than threatening physical violence. Archer never struck me as a physically violent man unless he was under great duress.
Only if you saw his character as an arrogant asshole. To be frank, that term is old-fashioned. The key thing is that officers (and even enlisted personnel) are supposed to conduct themselves professionally. This goes double for senior officers, which Archer was. While I always have seen Starfleet as a military service, on the show they kept trying to emphasize the explorer role of Starfleet, and how new the organization was, so the only transitioning going on was Earth pushing outwards into space. And to be frank, even the modern military, which is very much "war-like", still holds its officers to certain standards. In a modern setting, Archer would have been reprimanded for conduct unbecoming and officer. I didn't, I found his character very arrogant, abrasive, and generally unlikeable, to say nothing of his complete lack of charisma and leadership ability. 1) It proved her point. 2) I didn't see a smile on anyone's face, did you? Didn't look very "gentleman" like to me. But what matters the most in the context of his being a senior officer is that it was very unprofessional conduct. I got what he was trying to do too, namely trying to make him a cliched maverick-type.
I've learned a lot from reading different threads here about other people's points of views. There are as many ways to interpret an episode, or a scene, or a character, as there are viewers. I had the benefit of watching the first three seasons without knowing anything about any "shipper wars," so I had a largely unbiased view. From "Broken Bow" on, I saw episodes and scenes that demonstrated the building of trust and friendship between Archer and T'Pol. And I saw the "what-if" potential that the A/T'P shippers saw, too. I thought there was a nice chemistry between Bakula and Blalock, and that was coming through onscreen. "Twilight" was a beautiful (if bittersweet) way to illustrate a little bit of what might have been. I also saw an intriguing, but very different, chemistry between T'Pol and Trip from the get-go. Trip was a completely different character than Archer, both professionally and personally, and T/T had the same kind of Spock/McCoy thing going where they were opposites and mostly at odds with each other, but there was an undercurrent of respect and regard. (The Spock/McCoy dynamic was my favorite element of TOS.) On TOS, the Spock/McCoy friendship was already established, but on Enterprise we were able to see it from the beginning, as Trip and T'Pol gradually learned how to work together, then became friends, then fell in love. I enjoyed watching both relationships develop. Usually the most enjoyable part of a TV show for me is the "building of the friendship" or the "falling in love" part between the lead characters. Of course, if it takes 8 or 10 years, like on JAG or The X-Files... well, that's a bit too much of a good thing.
Why did people get the idea that Archer would be likely suitable for T'pol? Because of 'A night in sickbay'. Archer never perceived T'pol as anything more than a colleague to begin with ... not until Phlox implanted the idea that he 'might' be attracted to T'Pol. I'm sorry, one episode doesn't really justify this 'relationship'. Trip and T'Pol spent more time together, also went through various problems of their own from Season 3 onward, and are a likelier couple. If anything, I was disappointed that they never made Archer gay. Hm ... bisexual, he might be ... nothing on-screen states he's not anyway.
Same here! One of my favorite aspects of DS9 was the Bashir/O'Brien friendship - they came from practically hating one another to being best friends/buddies in Star Trek. Their relationship really evolved, and it happened on screen, for all of us to see. The Archer / T'Pol relationship never even came close to that, though it almost had even greater potential. Those two were friends, that much was evident, but they were never intimate friends (you know, like two people who confide in each other about their thoughts, feelings, relationships etc). That just wasn't visible on screen.
We definitely heard that remark differently. My interpretation of his comment was that he had to resist the urge to belt a Vulcan when he sees one. T'Pol's reply might have been, "Thanks for making my point for me." I suspect she could have been injured if he had struck her. She took a sock in the jaw during combat training in "Harbinger" and when she was lying the floor she sure looked pained to me. Tho' that might have been the trellium. And just because he let women enter a room ahead of him didn't make him a gentleman. A gentleman can be spotted by his ability to control his lesser impulses. Archer, not so much.