Archer's 'punch' to the Vulcan-The Andorian Incident

[Joel_Kirk]

This has probably been discussed here already....

Actually, what hasn't been discussed on Trektoday that is Trek-related?

Anywho, we have the Vulcan minister putting a gun to Archer's head when it is found out that the Vulcans have a transmission station watching over the Andorians....

Archer puches out said Vulcan with one punch....

In the episode 'Mirror, Mirror'....Scotty, Uhura, McCoy, and Kirk weren't able to knock Spock out....although, a skull handed to Kirk by Uhura was able to knock out that Vulcan--albeit putting Spock in a critical condition...

My fanon idea is this: The Vulcan's were fatigued; maybe the Andorians knew the people they were coming up against (since it was said that they make visits) the Andorians probably had some agent floating around to lessen the Vulcan's strength....

It brings up another question about the agent T'Pol uses for the 'smell' of humans: Did future Vulcans (Spock, Tuvok, Vorik, his twin Taurik) use the same agent? Or was that a racist, negative human quality the Vulcans had at the time?

 

[JuanBolio]

I'd imagine that, much like humans, some Vulcans are strong and can take a lot of punishment, others not so much. It only takes one well-placed blow to render someone unconscious, even kill them. Vulcans are not invulnerable nor beyond the capability of humans to hurt them.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

^^

You know, it reminds me of the scene in Independence Day where Steven Hiller (Will Smith's character) puches the alien after both have a crash landing; although, the alien has a crash landing, while Hiller escapes in a parachute.

The alien has an exoskeleton, obvious strength we see later on in the film....yet, a human is able to knock the big alien out...

I think we humans are just catching aliens on their bad day....

 

[Count Zero]

It brings up another question about the agent T'Pol uses for the 'smell' of humans: Did future Vulcans (Spock, Tuvok, Vorik, his twin Taurik) use the same agent? Or was that a racist, negative human quality the Vulcans had at the time?

Well, for one thing, it's established that it's Vulcan women who have a heightened sense of smell, so men would be less affected by it.
But I also believe that they would get used to the smell after a while. It's like living with big dogs.


About your other question: From the episode it was obvious the monk was a sissy so I'm not surprised Archer could knock him out.

 

[Skywalker]

It's just a silly Super Archer moment, like when he was able to put up a fight against those Vulcan soldiers in The Forge trilogy (can't remember which episode it was specifically) while T'Pol, well, couldn't.

 

[bluedana]

It's just a silly Super Archer moment, like when he was able to put up a fight against those Vulcan soldiers in The Forge trilogy (can't remember which episode it was specifically) while T'Pol, well, couldn't.

More likely that the Vulcan monk (1) was not a trained fighter and (2) was not expecting the punch. I could probably have taken him out with one punch under those circumstances.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I recall Kirk was able to take down superhuman Khan in 'Space Seed'...so I guess this wouldn't be the last time...[If we look at things from an 'in-universe' pov].

 

[Disillusioned]

I suppose it could kind of be like steel, where the harder it is the more brittle it could be. So for all their strength, Vulcans could basically have glass jaws.

 

[commodore64]

It's just a silly Super Archer moment, like when he was able to put up a fight against those Vulcan soldiers in The Forge trilogy (can't remember which episode it was specifically) while T'Pol, well, couldn't.

Because he was carrying the katra of Surak, the father of Vulcan logic, who apparently had some martial arts and neck pinching skills. But ... I think it leads to a bigger question: Super Archer? You know, I have never, ever figured out why audience members get so angry the hero of a story has almost supernatural powers. That's kind of the way every story ever written has been done. I accept and embrace that heroes are special.

So overall, Archer should be able to punch out guys faster, etc. But here's the ironic thing -- I kind of agree in this incident, it would been better to have a longer fight. I wonder if it got cut for time. And another point I agree with in general is that the Vulcans as written by pretty much every writer in Enterprise, were written poorly. I also don't think the Manny Coto/Mike Sussman explanation during the Forge trilogy completely gets Enterprise off the hook.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Or Archer got lucky enough to pick fights with girly Vulcans. I mean, what are the odds, but the on-screen evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Disillusioned]

Because he was carrying the katra of Surak, the father of Vulcan logic, who apparently had some martial arts and neck pinching skills. But ... I think it leads to a bigger question: Super Archer? You know, I have never, ever figured out why audience members get so angry the hero of a story has almost supernatural powers. That's kind of the way every story ever written has been done. I accept and embrace that heroes are special.

I'm going to guess that it's because if you make the hero too special, they become like a "Gary Stu" and it tends to turn people off to the character. That's basically what it was for me. On the one hand they made him comically inept in order to sell him as "flawed," and on the other they made him Awesome McCool Action Hero because of the type of reasoning you describe. In a way it's like trying to have it both ways, where Archer is both flawed and perfect. The problem is that neither portrayal was very good or executed very well.

 

[bluedana]

Because he was carrying the katra of Surak, the father of Vulcan logic, who apparently had some martial arts and neck pinching skills. But ... I think it leads to a bigger question: Super Archer? You know, I have never, ever figured out why audience members get so angry the hero of a story has almost supernatural powers. That's kind of the way every story ever written has been done. I accept and embrace that heroes are special.

I'm going to guess that it's because if you make the hero too special, they become like a "Gary Stu" and it tends to turn people off to the character. That's basically what it was for me. On the one hand they made him comically inept in order to sell him as "flawed," and on the other they made him Awesome McCool Action Hero because of the type of reasoning you describe. In a way it's like trying to have it both ways, where Archer is both flawed and perfect. The problem is that neither portrayal was very good or executed very well.

Yes, look what a failure the character Jack Bauer turned out to be.

Seriously, I think Commie's right here: the hero of the piece gets to be just a little extra. Sometimes it's his or her flaws that gets everyone in the predicament in the first place (see: Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly), because that's why you have a story in the first place. But when it comes right down to it, the hero is usually the one who gets the last punch in, all the while dodging automatic gunfire and never getting shot, running at full speed across a vacant lot and taking out the bad guys one by one with his/her Glock.

 

[Disillusioned]

Yes, look what a failure the character Jack Bauer turned out to be.

That depends on who you ask, and it also tends to vary as to the reasons why. After all, some people tend to look down on the torture aspects even if they aren't bothered by the character being just the best Gary Stu he can be.

Seriously, I think Commie's right here: the hero of the piece gets to be just a little extra.

That's the cliche anyway.

Sometimes it's his or her flaws that gets everyone in the predicament in the first place (see: Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly), because that's why you have a story in the first place.

Malcolm Reynolds was hardly presented as being perfect in any way, though. He also differed from Archer in that he was actually likable.

But when it comes right down to it, the hero is usually the one who gets the last punch in, all the while dodging automatic gunfire and never getting shot, running at full speed across a vacant lot and taking out the bad guys one by one with his/her Glock.

In bad action movies everywhere. Hence the cliche. There's probably even a TV Trope article about it, and it wouldn't surprise me if Archer came up at least once.

 

[Count Zero]

Well, the opinions on Archer vary wildly. The most common criticism is that he's pretty incompetent (and unlikeable). This doesn't scream 'Gary Stu' at me.
He was definetely portrayed as a rather flawed character from the first scene we saw him in in Broken Bow, where he threatened T'Pol ("Volatile? You have no idea how much I'm restraining myself from knocking you on your ass.") for no good reason. Even Admiral Forrest feels the need to tell him, "Don't screw this up." I really appreciated that we got such a flawed character as the Captain for a change, but it doesn't exactly inspire the greatest confidence, does it?
On their first mission, he gets shot, loses Klang and nearly provokes Future Guy into killing him. He screwed up many times in the course of the series. So, I don't see how he could be accused of being a Gary Stu. So he got lucky a few times, cut the guy some slack, he's beaten up enough times during the series' run.

 

[commodore64]

Most common criticism ....

Not based on any data.

Malcolm Reynolds was hardly presented as being perfect in any way, though. He also differed from Archer in that he was actually likable.

Besides contradicting the quote I included, I thought this was a good point for discussion. Yes, Mal Reynolds was the epitome of a guy who was imperfect, except ... when it really came down to it -- despite being an outlaw -- he always did the right thing. Case in point, in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" Mal wasn't going to burn in a very special place in hell because he kept neglecting his new bride so badly she had to actually kiss him a mickey to put him under so she could take over the ship. And he never really gave up Simon or his crazy sister River, he kept them despite how dangerous they were to him and his crew. Sure, he threatened, but we knew he'd never do it. And when he did it, he saved them.

And that's the thing about heroes: heroes do the right thing. Sometimes, they're wanted by the law (which is mean and nasty like in Firefly), but they always do the right thing. Occasionally, a hero is a dark hero and does the wrong thing (for the right reasons, a la Archer's decision to steal a warp coil). That's still wrong thing for right reason; we know if Archer didn't Earth would've been destroyed.

Blue is correct: heroes always get the last punch, the most significant punch and the strongest punch. Rarely do writers go for the deus ex machina (god in the machine) to save the day. I know as an audience member, I often feel disappointed or cheated when that happens.

 

[Disillusioned]

Well, the opinions on Archer vary wildly. The most common criticism is that he's pretty incompetent (and unlikeable). This doesn't scream 'Gary Stu' at me.

The part that screams Gary Stu is that he's always the best when it comes to marksmanship or in a hand-to-hand fight, and he's just always right, even if what the writers think is "right" doesn't really make all that much sense. The fact he's unlikable and incompetent just makes the idea that the show presented as his character always being right just rubbed people like me the wrong way that much more.

He was definetely portrayed as a rather flawed character from the first scene we saw him in in Broken Bow, where he threatened T'Pol ("Volatile? You have no idea how much I'm restraining myself from knocking you on your ass.") for no good reason.

Flawed? That's an understatement. I'd say he was portrayed as arrogant, undisciplined, and not exactly the kind of person you want commanding a ship that was as important as Enterprise was supposed to be on a diplomatic mission to a planet full of people you've never met. First impressions and all that.

Even Admiral Forrest feels the need to tell him, "Don't screw this up."

Which isn't a good thing, really. Considering the importance of what he was supposed to be doing, the commanding Admiral should have complete confidence in the person he's putting in charge of carrying out the mission. If Admiral Forrest didn't have complete confidence in Captain Archer, he should have found someone else to command Enterprise on this mission.

I really appreciated that we got such a flawed character as the Captain for a change, but it doesn't exactly inspire the greatest confidence, does it?

Star Trek actually did manage to give us a commanding officer who was both "flawed" and yet managed to be likable and respectable as a character: Commander Sisko.

On their first mission, he gets shot, loses Klang and nearly provokes Future Guy into killing him. He screwed up many times in the course of the series. So, I don't see how he could be accused of being a Gary Stu. So he got lucky a few times, cut the guy some slack, he's beaten up enough times during the series' run.

The thing that makes him a Gary Stu isn't that he "got lucky a few times", it's that he was just always right, and always won in a fight. You know, the aspect of him that was the cliched action hero.

]Not based on any data.

No, it's my opinion based on comments I've seen as well as what I saw for myself. Exactly as your assessment of the character is based entirely on your own opinion, which is no more valid than mine.

Besides contradicting the quote I included,

How?

Yes, Mal Reynolds was the epitome of a guy who was imperfect, except ... when it really came down to it -- despite being an outlaw -- he always did the right thing.

But he wasn't always right and his crew actually reacted somewhat realistically when he did something questionable. Malcolm Reynolds also isn't the type of character that would make a good Starfleet captain; he worked for the situation his character was in.

And that's the thing about heroes: heroes do the right thing.

That has nothing to do with Archer being able to best trained Vulcan commandos or any of his other Gary Stu moments.

Blue is correct: heroes always get the last punch, the most significant punch and the strongest punch. Rarely do writers go for the deus ex machina (god in the machine) to save the day.

Actually that is the most common thing for Hollywood to do, so much so that it's become a cliche. When that cliche is avoided the movie tends to be more interesting to me. Of course, your mileage may vary.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

The thing that makes him a Gary Stu isn't that he "got lucky a few times", it's that he was just always right, and always won in a fight.

"...always right"? Yet you characterize him as "arrogant, undisciplined," and deeply flawed. And there are reams of threads here that delight in pointing out all the stuff he did wrong.

"...always won in a fight"? The guy got the crap beaten out of him more times than I can count. Including in the episode under discussion, "The Andorian Incident."

As I understand it, "Mary Sues" and "Gary Stus" are always coming up with the way to solve the problem and save the day, they're skilled at everything, they're impossibly perfectly perfect.

Archer -- not perfect by any means! That's one of the things I liked about him. The Archer I saw on the show learned by doing, sometimes by screwing up; he wasn't innately perfect. He certainly didn't have the answer to every problem he encountered. He had cranky days, just like real people do. He had a self-sacrificial streak a mile wide -- he wasn't like those generals who would sit on their horses on top of a hill and watch the battle raging far below. He also had a strong moral center, and compassion, and a sense of duty and responsibility. And he retained his humanity and optimism, despite conflicts and war. I found him quite likeable.

Different viewers see characters and situations differently, depending on their own unique point of view. The character didn't work for everyone, but he worked for me.

BTW, I loved that last scene in "The Andorian Incident" where Archer cold-cocks the Vulcan holding a weapon on him. "Very disrespectful... Boy, did it feel good." Made me laugh out loud. Totally understandable to me, after being held hostage, beaten up by Shran, and lied to by the supposedly always-truthful Vulcans.

 

[pookha]

Because he was carrying the katra of Surak, the father of Vulcan logic, who apparently had some martial arts and neck pinching skills. But ... I think it leads to a bigger question: Super Archer? You know, I have never, ever figured out why audience members get so angry the hero of a story has almost supernatural powers. That's kind of the way every story ever written has been done. I accept and embrace that heroes are special.

I'm going to guess that it's because if you make the hero too special, they become like a "Gary Stu" and it tends to turn people off to the character. That's basically what it was for me. On the one hand they made him comically inept in order to sell him as "flawed," and on the other they made him Awesome McCool Action Hero because of the type of reasoning you describe. In a way it's like trying to have it both ways, where Archer is both flawed and perfect. The problem is that neither portrayal was very good or executed very well.

Yes, look what a failure the character Jack Bauer turned out to be.

Seriously, I think Commie's right here: the hero of the piece gets to be just a little extra. Sometimes it's his or her flaws that gets everyone in the predicament in the first place (see: Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly), because that's why you have a story in the first place. But when it comes right down to it, the hero is usually the one who gets the last punch in, all the while dodging automatic gunfire and never getting shot, running at full speed across a vacant lot and taking out the bad guys one by one with his/her Glock.

that can be true but i still see what happened in the last part of the forge trilogy as being over the top and silly.
plus, ignoring a lot of what happened in amok time and in search for spock.

the neck pinch ability does not transfer.. we see that in search for spock.
it is also dangerous for a human and wears one out.

in amok time kirk was getting roughed up by an ill spock and was out of breath even before bones drugged him.

to see archer take out several trained vulcan agents while tpol is shown to be totally helpless was just bizarre enough to be crazy.

some super type things archer did do made sense in context of the character.
being the best pilot on the ship makes sense.
being able to out wit the klingons in the soong trilogy made sense.

but things like the super archer stupidty in episodes the shipment seriously hurt the other characters and the episode itself.

as for andorian incident .. i could perhaps buy that archer just caught him by suprise and he wasnt prepare if he was a real monk.
but, i wondered if perhaps he was an agent mixed in with the monks to provide protection upside .
so that the andorians perhaps had done something to make the vulcans weaker makes sense.

 

[Disillusioned]

"...always right"? Yet you characterize him as "arrogant, undisciplined," and deeply flawed. And there are reams of threads here that delight in pointing out all the stuff he did wrong.

How I characterize him and how the writers tried to characterize him are two completely different things. If you read one of my earlier posts I mention how they tried to make him both comically flawed and Awesome McCool Action Hero at the same time.

"...always won in a fight"? The guy got the crap beaten out of him more times than I can count. Including in the episode under discussion, "The Andorian Incident."

And yet still always managed to win. Hence the Gary Stu aspect of his character. It never mattered how much he got beaten up, he somehow always had the strength to keep going and dish out more himself. The example you give actually illustrates this pretty well, because for all he's endured, be still has enough in him to run around the basement of the place while under fire, and cold cock the Vulcan monk.

As I understand it, "Mary Sues" and "Gary Stus" are always coming up with the way to solve the problem and save the day, they're skilled at everything, they're impossibly perfectly perfect.

And Archer pretty much fits the bill.

Different viewers see characters and situations differently, depending on their own unique point of view. The character didn't work for everyone, but he worked for me.

Indeed.

 

[commodore64]

No, it's my opinion based on comments I've seen as well as what I saw for myself.

Correct: Opinion. Yours.

But he wasn't always right

No, but there's a difference between being right and doing the right thing.

Not right: He stole a warp coil. He tortured a prisoner. And yet, if he didn't, Earth would've been destroyed. Hence, not right, but did the right thing.

Malcolm Reynolds also isn't the type of character that would make a good Starfleet captain; he worked for the situation his character was in.

But here's the thing - the entire series was based on the idea that Archer was the very first Starfleet captain, making "mistakes" that other captains would benefit from, including a Prime Directive.

I personally believe that no one would rise to acceptance from the Trek community.

Actually that is the most common thing for Hollywood to do, so much so that it's become a cliche. When that cliche is avoided the movie tends to be more interesting to me. Of course, your mileage may vary.

You should take it up with the people who wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Bible or Homer, not Hollywood. Hercules, Moses, Gilgamesh, etc. are heroes way before Hollywood was ever created. That's how deeply rooted these are. People in Hollywood use these "cliches" because they feel natural. I can't think of a single show that doesn't follow this formula.