Bakula; a downer?

[miriel68]

The issue for me about Archer is that his negative traits aren't really justified by anything that happens on the show. He despises Vulcans because they "held his father back." But the only "evidence" of this is Little Jonny Archer remarking to his father at the opening of Broken Bow that some kid in his school said so. .

Now, I think the way Vulcans are portrayed in the show wholly justifies Archer's dislike for them... I know many people had problems with Vulcans being soooo annoying but personally I found it a brilliant idea. So what if we had we-love-each-other Vulcan Human relationship in the whole show? Woudn't it be really boring?

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Deadalus is another example. We've never heard of Dr. Emory until he shows up in this episode. Yet we're supposed to believe that Archer has this profoundly close attachment to this man and his family. We really needed a scene to demonstrate an emotional connection because frankly nothing -- absolutely nothing -- happens here that shows (as opposed to being told repeatedly) the bond between this surrogate "father" and Archer.

I thought the opening when Emory and Danica beam aboard and Archer greeted them was pretty sweet.

Did Emory need to be Archer's surrogate father? Maybe not. It might have been done to add some "moral dilemma" energy to the situation.

As for backstory popping up out of nowhere, that happens on every show. We didn't know a fig about Trip's beloved kid sister Elizabeth until "The Expanse"--we didn't even find out what she looked like until the beginning of Season 3. All the writers could do was have Trip talk about her. Gannett Brooks, Erika Hernandez...it's the nature of TV. The staff comes up with a cool idea for character backstory, but there's not enough lead time to set it up in previous episodes.

Alas, this show didn't quite keep track of backstory elements (My dad? He died when I was 12. No, wait--he died after I entered flight school...), which was unfortunate. Perhaps they were too busy just trying to stay on the air.

 

[commodore64]

Well, at least he was concerned. Now if he had just remembered the feeling the next time he wanted to put his crew in harm's way...

I think Hopeful Romantic indicated the same scene I referenced. I think Archer did remember that feeling when he put his crew in danger, which is usually why he offered up himself -- and is sometimes called Super!Archer.

I guess for the poor character, there's just no winning.

Let's try to remember that the chief engineer is an admirer of Dr. Deadalus. He doesn't come to the job suspicious or resentful or jealous of this guy. But he can see very clearly that Dr. Deadalus is NOT on the level. Trip knows his stuff and Dr. Deadalus is lying all over the place. Lying to SFC; lying to his friend Archer. Lying. Lying Lying. It was Trip's duty to report what he knew and it was Archer's duty to investigate.

I do and did. Trip is an admirer, Archer grew up with the guy as a second father. They both have their biases. That's not really what I'm referring to.

Trip correctly says, "Hey, Jon, your bias is getting the best of you."

Where I think he falters is when he's given an order. Trip makes a point and over makes it, in my point of view; Archer already told him he was done with the topic. When an order is given, and your objections have been listened to, you say, "Aye, sir." Otherwise, it could be perceived as insubordination. Starfleet has lots of instances where it's: shut up and do what I say, including in TOS, TNG and DS9. The guy or gal with the most stripes/bars gets to make that decision.

I still stand by both guys are wrong in that instance, even if we [the audience] agree with Trip. Also, I think if Trip were smart in this instance, after that discussion, he'd go to T'Pol and say, "I was unable to talk any sense into him. You think you can?" He's done it before and it worked out for him.

Besides, Archer isn't the only "manager" who's unreasonable and has biases. Kirk did it pla-lenty to Spock and McCoy (Spock and McCoy would sometimes talk to each other to dissuade Kirk when he was making the wrong decision). And shucks, people in RL write books on "managing your manager."

IMO, her approach has more to do with being a Vulcan than having his number.

Being logical? That's part of it. I think Trip is -- to his foibles -- too emotional sometimes. T'Pol doesn't give up and gives a dispassionate argument that is usually good counsel.

Again, Trip is McCoy and T'Pol is Spock.

I wasn't suggesting that Archer should feel guilty because Trip's feelings were hurt. My point was that Trip caught on very early that Dr. Deadalus was not being forthcoming and one consequence of Archer's refusal to take Trip's legitimate concerns seriously is that a member of the crew ended up dead. That is what Archer should have felt guilty about.

I got your point. I don't think you got mine.

I don't care who he's mad at. He's still taking it out on everyone around him like a spoiled brat who needs to spend a couple of years in a time out.

Maybe you're right about him -- to you -- being too human. I liked his foibles. Every character had a few.

Lastly, one of the things I've really enjoyed lately is the positive energy (possibly a West Coast-ism) of this board. People are friendly and nice. I'd like to keep that going. Can we both agree to do that? I may not agree with your opinions, but I'd like to keep the good spirits going and I'll try to watch being judgmental.

 

[Anna Yolei]

Yes, that seems to be an increasing problem with lists and boards. What is peoples problems anyway? Why do they just come to these boards to bash? You can find flaws in any movie or tv show, and at times with any actor, nobody is perfect, but who wants to come here and see their favorite show or actor bashed? Oh well is lots of decent people in here anyway but always one bad apple that has to post a counterpoint, every time, lol

As Commie mentioned upthread, there's bashing and there's critiquing. We did have some people who came off as bashers for never giving the show any praise whatsoever, but from the one infamous basher I go to know fairly well, I think most of the people who stuck it out till the end cared about Trek too much to let it go Now that I see the soaps I've been watching since forever circling the drain, I can understand the other side's defenses against this show a bit more and why they'd post here, ya know?

Like he can't honestly be concerned about Porthos. That he can honestly be pissed off about the Kretassans. He can't honestly be angry with himself.

Actually, I did think these were Archer's real issues in ANiS, and I chalked up the T'Pol stuff to sleep deprivation and Phlox's goofy suggestions. It's one of those episodes that polarized viewers, with a bunch of people hating it and thinking Archer was an idiot, and a bunch of others laughing and totally in sympathy with him. And ne'er the twain shall meet, I guess.

Although I can't say ANIS is one of my favorite hours of ENT, the thing about Archer's Freudian slip has been blown up like woah. I remember some calling him a sexual harasser because of it, which given the circumstances I thought was unfair. He JUST WOKE UP and his dog was sick (from actions he could have avoid, but that's besides the point). Of course he's not thinking at full capacity. *In before "But Archer's stoopid!!11!1*

That being said, ANIS was the icing on the cake, so far as his characterization. Just about every criticism one can make against Archer's character appeared in this episode, and considering that this was just the second season, why the hell would TIIC do this type of episode anyway?

Something else to add in as a is that the dislike of Archer can be noticeably emotional, intense, passionate, even vitriolic. It's as if the dislikers are deeply, personally offended by the character. It's not something I have noticed occasionally, but often. Sure, I've run across characters that don't work for me in TV, movies, fiction. But I don't comb the thesaurus for new and more horrible insult-words for them. I haven't suggested that they be replaced--or worse, killed off. I just don't get it.

I'll admit I wasn't Archer's biggest fan in season one for many reasons that Jinx has brought up though this thread. He came off as a whiny brat who put his pride above the well-being of his crew far too many times. But there were times I had to go O_O at some of the things said about his character, and some of the fanfic that was written for him--including one where he's married to T'Pol, but apparently had no respect for the culture and treats his son like crap for wanting to follow Vulcan customs.

Archer's not perfect, but he's not an entirely horrible person for being a questionable leader once upon a time.

 

[JiNX-01]

Lastly, one of the things I've really enjoyed lately is the positive energy (possibly a West Coast-ism) of this board. People are friendly and nice. I'd like to keep that going. Can we both agree to do that? I may not agree with your opinions, but I'd like to keep the good spirits going and I'll try to watch being judgmental.

Yeah, it's plain we are never going to see eye to eye on any of this...

Truce.

Mary

 

[pookha]

having first flight as a first season episode would have helped people understand archer a lot better.
for one thing it carries a reason for archer feeling the way he does about vulcans beyond the stuff with his father.

 

[JiNX-01]

That would have helped a lot. But I still would have liked some scene in which we see the Why behind his apparently lifelong fixation on the Vulcans as bad guys.

 

[Bak_and_Blue]

That would have helped a lot. But I still would have liked some scene in which we see the Why behind his apparently lifelong fixation on the Vulcans as bad guys.

Jinx, how about the scene with kid-Archer talking about "Mr. Pointy" in Broken Bow?

 

[JiNX-01]

That would have helped a lot. But I still would have liked some scene in which we see the Why behind his apparently lifelong fixation on the Vulcans as bad guys.

Jinx, how about the scene with kid-Archer talking about "Mr. Pointy" in Broken Bow?

Yeah, I mentioned that one further up in the thread.

The trouble with that scene is he doesn't sound all that resentful (disrespectful, yes, but not angry). And all he says about it is that some kid at school said the Vulcans were holding humans back. [Hey, writers, nice job of telling rather showing. ]

I think a stronger case could have been made for Archer's resentment if we had seen young Jon witnessing the Vulcans jerking his father around; throwing up road blocks; then seeing him at father's side as he lay dying, telling Jon his two great regrets are that he didn't live to see his son grow up and his engine fly. That would have stayed with Jon even into adulthood and given him a nice case of arrested development in this particularly sensitive area when it came to the Vulcans.

 

[commodore64]

I can understand why you want to *see* the Vulcans being mean to Archer. A flashback of when his father died, with the Vulcans dispassionately ready to close the book on space flight, wouId've been explicit. It would definitely explain why he hated the Vulcans.

I took it for granted that Archer blamed the Vulcans for his father's death, not just for withholding technology. But I'm always in favor of showing (versus telling).

 

[JiNX-01]

That's the whole point. If we had seen what happened to make him like this, watching him bristle each time a Vulcan ship came into view would make sense. I wanted Archer's behavior to be explicable -- and sometimes it was: Breaking the Ice: Capt. Vanik was an ass. Watching Archer give him the boot was a pleasure.

 

[miriel68]

think a stronger case could have been made for Archer's resentment if we had seen young Jon witnessing the Vulcans jerking his father around; throwing up road blocks; then seeing him at father's side as he lay dying, telling Jon his two great regrets are that he didn't live to see his son grow up and his engine fly. That would have stayed with Jon even into adulthood and given him a nice case of arrested development in this particularly sensitive area when it came to the Vulcans.

Must be everything so explicit? I agree that the film is basically a visual art but I'm not sure it is necessary always to "show" and to reduce all behaviours and emotions to simple equations. Archer states clearly more than once that in his opinion Volcans were mean to his father; and Volcans in Broken Bow ARE mean to everybody: Archer, Forrest, humankind in general. Also, I think a very important point the film is trying to make is about overcoming prejudice: Archer has some real reasons to dislike Volcans, but some of this dislike is irrational the same, paradoxally, can be said about Volcans. I appreciated very much that the film tried to deal with this problem without giving Archer too much justification for his antagonism towards Volcans.
But I still have got an impression that all this criticism toward Archer is due to the conviction that a captain should be a noble hero without blame and weakness.

 

[commodore64]

^ I think showing is always better than telling. I think, even as a fan, I had a lot of problems with other parts of the show where they told us things, rather than showed us. I would say that was a major fault of the show. And strangely enough, Coto had the same issues.

I've always thought having a moment where we see the Vulcans as "bad" guys to Henry Archer would explain Jon Archer's rationale not just for hating the Vulcans, but for having a Daddy complex. It didn't bother me we never saw that, but I think it would've been a good idea.

Muriel, your point about the Vulcans having irrational fears and biases is right on. I saw both sides of the equation as well: Archer and the humans were snotty to T'Pol; T'Pol was snotty to the humans. Throughout the show, we see the Vulcans become more friendly -- even Soval -- and the humans warm up to the idea of the Vulcans. Perhaps another beef with the show is I feel Archer and T'Pol's friendship got us to Kirk and Spock's, but overall don't feel like the two races -- even after The Forge arc -- are headed only for success. Instead, I feel the humans and Andorians had the best relationship.

 

[Jeri]

The problem is not showing or telling; it's more basic than that -- that they set Vulcans up to be our caretakers at all. That put a pall over every human in the series and over the viewers sitting at home, as well. I don't need it shown to me what a downer that would be; it's abundantly clear.

The great thing about TOS was the exuberance of the human spirit. They just about killed it at the start of this show; and I disagree that eventually showing the vulnerabilities of the Vulcans as a culture made up for that. It seems that was the main tension of the show; and it's a grim one.

 

[Corran Horn]

Archer lost me with water polo. And he could never recover.

 

[Bak_and_Blue]

The problem is not showing or telling; it's more basic than that -- that they set Vulcans up to be our caretakers at all. That put a pall over every human in the series and over the viewers sitting at home, as well. I don't need it shown to me what a downer that would be; it's abundantly clear.

The great thing about TOS was the exuberance of the human spirit. They just about killed it at the start of this show; and I disagree that eventually showing the vulnerabilities of the Vulcans as a culture made up for that. It seems that was the main tension of the show; and it's a grim one.

This is a great point that I never really thought of before.
Makes me go Hmmmmmmm.

 

[JiNX-01]

think a stronger case could have been made for Archer's resentment if we had seen young Jon witnessing the Vulcans jerking his father around; throwing up road blocks; then seeing him at father's side as he lay dying, telling Jon his two great regrets are that he didn't live to see his son grow up and his engine fly. That would have stayed with Jon even into adulthood and given him a nice case of arrested development in this particularly sensitive area when it came to the Vulcans.

Must be everything so explicit? I agree that the film is basically a visual art but I'm not sure it is necessary always to "show" and to reduce all behaviours and emotions to simple equations. Archer states clearly more than once that in his opinion Volcans were mean to his father; and Volcans in Broken Bow ARE mean to everybody: Archer, Forrest, humankind in general. Also, I think a very important point the film is trying to make is about overcoming prejudice: Archer has some real reasons to dislike Volcans, but some of this dislike is irrational the same, paradoxally, can be said about Volcans. I appreciated very much that the film tried to deal with this problem without giving Archer too much justification for his antagonism towards Volcans.
But I still have got an impression that all this criticism toward Archer is due to the conviction that a captain should be a noble hero without blame and weakness.

The first thing you learn when studying the craft of writing is to show, don't tell.

The bland, off-hand remark young Jon makes in BB goes absolutely nowhere near explaining his conduct in adulthood. Even "Ambassador Pointy" struck me as more childish disrespect, rather than contempt rooted in a deeply felt justification for despising the Vulcans.

Archer's intense hatred of the Vulcans is an essential aspect of who he is and the man he will become. Seeing early on what happened to make him feel this way is important dramatically and for setting up his character. This is particularly true because the first time we see him with Vulcans, he tells a female half his size that he's resisting the temptation to "knock her on her ass." Hardly the behavior I would expect from an officer and a "gentleman" who has been tapped to serve as Earth's first "ambassador" to the greater galaxy.

He doesn't have to be noble and wonderful and perfect. He has to be sympathetic or his outbursts, petulance and disrepect toward Vulcans just make him look bad. This is particularly so when you're introducing a captain who hates Vulcans to fans (yes, the writers should have kept us in mind) who have liked Vulcans as far back as 1966. The whole idea of Vulcans as obstructionists was more alien to us than the aliens. It was essential that this trait in 22nd century Vulcans be credible, and the only way to make it credible was to show them in action early enough in Archer's history to explain his hostility, the roots of which were not evident from that scene in the opening of Broken Bow.

 

[miriel68]

The first thing you learn when studying the craft of writing is to show, don't tell.

Couldn't agree more. My point was more about HOW to show some things: I tend to believe suggesting is more powerful than plainly showing. And as far as I see Vulcans behaviour in the 3 first seasons is more than enough to explain Archer's dislike to them. Why are we talking about "hatred"? Dislike yes: but as soon as the end of the first episode Archer recognises some of
irrationality of his behaviour: that's pretty fast.
I can understand old fans irritation about portrayal of Vulcans: if I were an admirer of TOS I could probably be disappointed about it, too. However, I have no problem with watching TOS, TNG or Enterprise as separate shows, and being not particularly fond of the exuberant optimism of TOS, I welcome some grim notes to s-f.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

The first thing you learn when studying the craft of writing is to show, don't tell.

Sure, "Show, don't tell" is a basic tool of effective storytelling. So is "backstory," the story that happens before the story that is shown onscreen, the story that is referenced by characters as the onscreen story unfolds. Enterprise isn't the story of how Henry Archer got shafted, or how Jonathan became prejudiced against Vulcans. It's the story of the first Warp Five starship and her crew, and their adventures in space.

"Broken Bow" does indeed open with a bit of backstory being shown: the flashback scene of 9-year-old Jonny Archer and his dad, who is developing the Warp Five engine. References to "Ambassador Pointy," and conflicting statements about how helpful the Vulcans have been, which indicates not all is hunky-dory between humans and Vulcans.

Fast-forward 30 years, and we are shown Vulcans who are haughty, controlling, reluctant to give out info...and humans (not just Archer, but also Trip and Forrest, to name two) who are not fans of Vulcans. T'Pol is shown to be extremely judgmental of humans. And we learn at some point (I don't know which episode, I don't have them memorized) that Henry did not live to see his Warp Five engine realized.

Did I see every step in between that 30-year jump? No. But I didn't need a road map to figure out why Jon might be resentful of Vulcans for slowing things down, being too Big Brother, and keeping his dad from personally seeing his dream come to fruition. That one flashback scene even showed me that Henry didn't seem to have an ax to grind, and that Jon's resentment might be more that of a son hurting for his father, more emotionally driven.

The bland, off-hand remark young Jon makes in BB goes absolutely nowhere near explaining his conduct in adulthood. Even "Ambassador Pointy" struck me as more childish disrespect, rather than contempt rooted in a deeply felt justification for despising the Vulcans.

Archer's intense hatred of the Vulcans is an essential aspect of who he is and the man he will become. Seeing early on what happened to make him feel this way is important dramatically and for setting up his character.

Did we see the same 9-year-old kid? "contempt"..."despising"..."hatred"...I didn't take away any of that from the flashback scene. I think we have different interpretations of it.

I must admit, I never got that from grown-up Jon either, ever. I thought it was clear that he resented Vulcans, and why... but the words you use, I associate with red-faced, veins-bulging, gritted-teeth kind of behavior.

This is particularly true because the first time we see him with Vulcans, he tells a female half his size that he's resisting the temptation to "knock her on her ass." Hardly the behavior I would expect from an officer and a "gentleman" who has been tapped to serve as Earth's first "ambassador" to the greater galaxy.

Wellll, T'Pol isn't an elf. And Archer knows Vulcans are super-strong. I wasn't really tracking on size here, but the content and context of T'Pol's statement to him. The first time she speaks, it is to pass judgment on him.

That line serves as the "exclamation point" of a block of dialogue in which Archer's frustration is being highlighted.

FORREST: We may need to defer to their judgement.
ARCHER: We've been deferring to their judgement for a hundred years!
FORREST: Jon.
ARCHER: How much longer?
T'POL: Until you've proven you're ready,
ARCHER: Ready to what?
T'POL: To look beyond your provincial attitudes and volatile nature.
ARCHER: Volatile? You have no idea how much I'm restraining myself from knocking you on your ass.

Again, our interpretations of this last line are different, I think. I took it as Archer deliberately playing on the word "volatile" by saying something volatile. I never thought he was seriously threatening her...just being the quintessential "volatile human" to make a point. He immediately changes the subject afterward, moving on to the Klingon and getting the ship ready.

He doesn't have to be noble and wonderful and perfect. He has to be sympathetic or his outbursts, petulance and disrepect toward Vulcans just make him look bad. This is particularly so when you're introducing a captain who hates Vulcans to fans (yes, the writers should have kept us in mind) who have liked Vulcans as far back as 1966. The whole idea of Vulcans as obstructionists was more alien to us than the aliens. It was essential that this trait in 22nd century Vulcans be credible, and the only way to make it credible was to show them in action early enough in Archer's history to explain his hostility, the roots of which were not evident from that scene in the opening of Broken Bow.

Outbursts...petulance...more stuff I didn't see. My husband read in a film comment article that film (and in this case, TV) serves as a Rorschacht test. What is onscreen is what it is, and remains unchanged, but it reveals all kinds of things about the different people who view it--their unique perspectives. That's certainly true for all of us!

Another way to look at the medical bay scene is to think that the Vulcans are acting like roadblocks and want the Klingon to croak, that Forrest is caught between a rock and a hard place and called Archer in because he secretly wants Archer to cause a stink, that Archer feels as if he's beating his head against a brick wall and this Vulcan whoever-she-is has no business judging him when she's never laid eyes on him...

The storytellers did something creative with the 22nd-century Vulcans. They're not the clearly identifiable "good guys" of the later series. They're in the way. They're obstacles. They're judgmental know-it-alls. They've been too hands-on, too restrictive. Humans are chafing under their patronage. All of this is laid out by the end of the medical bay scene, through dialogue and the behavior of the Vulcans and humans in this scene. And I haven't even mentioned Archer yet.

Either what was presented in that first act of "Broken Bow" works for you, or it doesn't. Happily for me, it worked for me just fine.

 

[JiNX-01]

The first thing you learn when studying the craft of writing is to show, don't tell.

... I tend to believe suggesting is more powerful than plainly showing.

True. If you're talking about sex.

But leaving it to the fans to fill in huge blanks about a character's internal workings is not the way to generate understanding. This discussion is evidence of that. People here seem to pretty much agree that the writing is what made Archer hard to like (or sympathize with).

And as far as I see Vulcans behaviour in the 3 first seasons is more than enough to explain Archer's dislike to them.

I don't want Archer's character to be defined by other people's behavior. I want it to be exposited by his own history.

Why are we talking about "hatred"?

He said he wanted to smack T'Pol. Those impulses don't come out of mere dislike. He also tended to get really, really ticked off at the mere sight of a Vulcan ship, going so far as to (initially) refuse Vulcan help when Enterprise was having trouble trying to rescue Reed and Mayweather in "Breaking the Ice."

Dislike yes: but as soon as the end of the first episode Archer recognises some of irrationality of his behaviour: that's pretty fast.

It was too fast. He inexplicably asks T'Pol to remain as his science officer after a single mission (she didn't help out the goodness of her heart, those were her orders) and she inexplicably agrees. Yet he would continue to rag on her about her species, give her dirty looks when Vulcans turned up on his radar (as if it was her fault), and behave like an ass whenever he was in the room with a Vulcan that wasn't T'Pol. It was strictly "present company excepted." That's not really much of an advancement.

[My reaction to that entire scene was ??!!!]

I can understand old fans irritation about portrayal of Vulcans: if I were an admirer of TOS I could probably be disappointed about it, too. However, I have no problem with watching TOS, TNG or Enterprise as separate shows, and being not particularly fond of the exuberant optimism of TOS, I welcome some grim notes to s-f.

I didn't mind there being lots of friction between humans and Vulcans. I consider it an entirely natural reaction on the part of both species to have difficulty adjusting to the significant differences. Even in TOS a century later we'll see friction (not as much, but it occurred).

I just think that if Archer is going to be particularly angry (as opposed to most humans on the show appearing merely irritated), I want to know why his hostility meter is ratcheted up. I shouldn't have to guess.