Carrying Spock's Katra did change McCoy's behaviour while he had it and was sending him loopy. Also McCoy tried a nerve pinch but it didn't work.
I don't think Archer changed at all because there was little in there to change ...
Captain Archer was the Best Captain
- Thread starter NextGen123
- Start date
Carrying Spock's Katra did change McCoy's behaviour while he had it and was sending him loopy. Also McCoy tried a nerve pinch but it didn't work.
I don't think Archer changed at all because there was little in there to change ...
Archer was great for where Ent was in the Trek series timeline. He wouldn't really need to be even remotely like any of the other Captains because it was the first ship, wasn't it? I got the impression that he needed to be more of a people person who could gain loyalty of his crew. His personality was perfect in that respect. They didn't need someone like Picard or Janeway because it was about exploring without any real concept of some of the things they'd be up against.
I have to agree. That is why I liked the show. Right up until the last episode though. When I first saw it I thought that the creators were trying to say the whole series was a holodeck fantasy. I wish they could have went out without the NG Enterprise's Riker deciding what defense he was going to work out with the starship incident in the NG episode "The Pegasus"
The mention of that NG episode had no place in the finale of Enterprise. You didn't know where it was coming from. If a viewer never saw the show; they never knew what Riker was taking about.
It was the worst kind of insider fanwank. Even the next most fanwankish episode, "In a Mirror, Darkly" tells you everything you need to know to understand what's going on even if you've never seen TOS.
I'm a die hard fan and I didn't remember "The Pegasus". It was a pretty average episode and unworthy of a 20-year-later rehash.
I'm a die hard fan and I didn't remember "The Pegasus". It was a pretty average episode and unworthy of a 20-year-later rehash.
I'm not quite sure what is meant by the first ship. Enterprise was the first NX-01 ship I believe, but Starfleet had been around for some time before it and the newness of the ship didn't excuse Archer's lack of experience in general. "First Flight" showed us he had a potential rival for the NX-01 gig, so that says to me that Archer was chosen because he was the better captain; but what he was best in I'm not sure. Maybe water polo.
How many ships did they have in space at the time? How many human crews? How long had starfleet been in existence, and when did their first ship go into space? What was the time in years between the first ship and Enterprise? I never studied all the details and only vaguely remember them as being held back by the Vulcans for 100 years or so and way behind the curve from Archer's perspective. I also remember Archer realizing how unprepared he was and they were for space when the Xindi came into the picture. That implied, to me, that they were noobs that really had just tipped their toe in the ocean. With that in mind, what sort of traits should Starfleet have decided that a Captain needed to have? Should he have been a great diplomat like Picard? I watched the series. I watched TNG and Voy as well. Granted, I'm not versed in every detail of Starfleet and have not studied all things Trek related, so perhaps my opinion differs from yours based on these things. However, I still feel he was a great captain. Did he seem larger than life? No. Should he have? Given that I didn't get the impression that anyone of the crew aside from T'pol and the Doctor had a genuine clue of what might await them, he seemed perfect for the job.
Enterprise was the greenest crew of them all. Surely I can't be the only one with that impression. Was there even a Starfleet Academy at the time? A Prime Directive? I got the impression that there were neither or that if they did exist they definitely were not as defined as they were by TNG timeline. In fact, I got the distinct impression from several ENT episodes that T'pol was helping Archer find his way on much of this because he had no clear guiding principal to help him make difficult decisions. TNG has that. Not as in your face as VOY, but it is there.
He seemed like a good to great Captain for ENT for where it was within the timeline of the series.
Enterprise was the greenest crew of them all. Surely I can't be the only one with that impression. Was there even a Starfleet Academy at the time? A Prime Directive? I got the impression that there were neither or that if they did exist they definitely were not as defined as they were by TNG timeline. In fact, I got the distinct impression from several ENT episodes that T'pol was helping Archer find his way on much of this because he had no clear guiding principal to help him make difficult decisions. TNG has that. Not as in your face as VOY, but it is there.
He seemed like a good to great Captain for ENT for where it was within the timeline of the series.
I liked the show because Archer was not confined to the restrictions placed by the federation. He was much more tempermental and listened to his gut. I liked Scott Bakula in Quantum Leap and have read fan fiction about him being the Enterprise captain years before the show was made.
I only wish the tone of season four could have been taken to (the unproduced) seasons five,six and seven. The books are the only way for fans of the series to imagine those lost seasons. I only wish that we could have seen Archer all the way to season seven.
Last edited:
Haven't posted for quite some time due to having surgery. Couldn't believe my eyes when I read that someone thinks Archer was the best ST Captain (Everyone has a right to their opinion no matter what I may think of Archer).
In my opinion he was the worst captain ever. No experiance, too soft with his crew and never believing that aliens once in a while could be right (especially Vulcans).
Spent far too much 'time' messing about with time. Enterprise as a series has grown on me and I enjoy watching it. It is not Scott's fault, he is a great actor but this was not a good part for him, infact I can't think of anyone who could've carried the part. I put it down to the writers as they have control over the characters plots.
In my opinion he was the worst captain ever. No experiance, too soft with his crew and never believing that aliens once in a while could be right (especially Vulcans).
Spent far too much 'time' messing about with time. Enterprise as a series has grown on me and I enjoy watching it. It is not Scott's fault, he is a great actor but this was not a good part for him, infact I can't think of anyone who could've carried the part. I put it down to the writers as they have control over the characters plots.
I agree, however Scott Backula was the only actor I could believe in a prequel series as a captain. Any other actor would have not lasted one season.
Scott was great. I keep taking into consideration that when he was a Captain, it's not like they had everything in place. Didn't the prime directive come from his experiences? In the show they've said how he was key. I get the impression that while he certainly wouldn't be a good captain on future treks, within the context of his time, all those things we look at and think 'WTF?!?!' (yep, I think it just like you
) are things that gave rise to the Prime Directive becoming what it did and making future captains have to make wiser choices and look at the broader view. All his 'mistakes' (and he made plenty) were growing pains for the federation, Starfleet and the prime directive. I think the writing was pretty brave in showing how everything evolved and why it evolved as it did. His choices were lessons for him and future generations. I think the greatness of Archer was that he would and could look back at things and realize the impact of his decisions. As a prequel, I think it's fantastic because I can see how it all evolved, and I can experience why the Prime Directive was so important and what sort of situations made it that way.
He was clueless, but he evolved. He learned and from his choices, both the good and the bad, he helped build a better Federation.
I don't think the character was pragmatic enough to survive. Take the episode Strange New World. His science officer advises him to send probes first and he essentially blows her off. Why? It made no sense to disregard her advice other than to show him giving her the 'bird'. They could've landed on the planet and been dead before the shuttlepod door was all the way open due to something in the air. Killing the captain, first officer and chief engineer all a few weeks after the mission started. The Vulcans had to have had fits of hysterical laughter behind closed doors after that one.
Every time he made a decision it justified the Vulcans worries about Starfleet. He wasn't a very smart captain and it pained me to see all the goofball shit he actually got away with.
like some of his other decisions, that one was a combination of incompetence and prejudice toward the Vulcans.
he was like a little kid at times.
"the Vulcans would do it this way, so we're going to do it the other way. Nyaah, nyaah!"
There was a Starfleet Academy, but no Prime Directive. I don't know the number of ships or crews out there-they left that pretty vague, but we did get to see a couple captains, Ramirez and Hernandez come to mind. We also know there was an admiralty, represented mainly by Forrest on the show, and you can't have admirals without them having people to boss around. We know that there were at least two NX ships out there, in addition to other Starfleet ships, and I might be assuming here but I thought the NX class was supposed to be the most advanced Earth starships, the only ones capable of going Warp 5.
To me that suggests that the crews of both then Enterprise and Columbia should be crewed by the best in the fleet, especially Enterprise since it was first. And most of the crew, on paper, seemed to have quite a bit of experience or talent, so they shouldn't have been all that green to me. But oddly enough we learn little about Archer's backstory, which could help explain why he was chosen to be captain. What we get mainly is that he's Henry Archer's son, and Admiral Forest likes him a lot.
As for what traits a 22nd century captain should have, I'm not sure. I think diplomacy skills, a tolerant outlook toward other species, adaptability, scientific curiosity, some basic ship technical know-how, military toughness should all be in the mix. IMO, it's debatable how much any of these traits Archer possessed. The idea of putting a stumbling captain in charge of your advanced starship doesn't make much sense. That doesn't mean that I think Archer shouldn't make mistakes, it just shouldn't be mistakes born of willful ignorance.
While far from perfect, Archer possessed all of those traits, or acquired them eventually:
diplomacy skills – The Breach, Cease Fire, The Council/Countdown/Zero Hour, Babel One, United
tolerant outlook toward other species – Unexpected, Sleeping Dogs, Cogenitor, really, any episode with aliens
adaptability – Civilization, Fallen Hero, the whole Xindi arc, it’s one of his defining characteristics
scientific curiosity – Strange New World, Breaking the Ice, Cogenitor, First Flight
some basic ship technical know-how – Singularity (piloting), The Crossing, First Flight, Damage
military toughness – Silent Enemy, Fallen Hero, The Expanse, the second half of the Xindi arc, the Augment arc.
In addition, he had compassion in spades, and an unwavering loyalty to his crew.
I think this is ironically why he was a good captain. His mistakes led to the Prime Directive. Some key parts of the Prime Directive are things T'pol says that the Vulcans wouldn't do. I forget what she called them. Codes? Their code? His mistakes tempered by Vulcan wisdom helped form the Prime Directive. There is no mention of the Prime Directive in ENT because it did not exist. We know he becomes an important figure in history from the finale. So clearly his experiences helped form the Prime Directive. Specific episodes have that idea at the core. It's a subtext throughout the series. Yes, he made a lot of rookie mistakes, but there was no directive to guide him. That directive came from his experiences.
He wasn't a great captain because he had nothing to guide him to be a great captain. He was a good captain because in many instances on the show when he didn't follow what T'pol recommended (because he didn't think it was the right thing to do) her advice - what the Vulcans would do - becomes part of the Prime Directive.
You can judge him on all the areas where he made mistakes, things that future captains would never do, but they wouldn't do that because of the Prime Directive. To judge him based on that when it didn't exist while he was captain is unfair. The writers had him do those things because those things would help guide the federation and future captains as well as create the prime directive.
I agree 100%. We wouldn't of had all these rules if Capt. Archer wasn't stepping on toes and making mistakes.
No. I'm not talking about ideological difference with the Vulcans, I'm talking about a total lack of basic common-sense.
I'm sorry guys but I can't buy some of these arguments excusing Archer's mistakes. Even though he didn't have Kirk, etc. to guide him, there was a standing Fleet in place which I assume had guidelines that he could've availed himself of. He wasn't the first Starfleet captain ever. I'm not sure how long Starfleet had been established before the NX-01 launched, but still Archer had centuries of experiences, etc. to draw from and still he stumbled about a bit too much.
As I said before I didn't mind him making mistakes and being the cause of future guidelines being created like the Prime Directive, but still I don't think it serves his case to say that he was completely green. If he was, he never should've been given command of Earth's most advanced starship.
As I said before I didn't mind him making mistakes and being the cause of future guidelines being created like the Prime Directive, but still I don't think it serves his case to say that he was completely green. If he was, he never should've been given command of Earth's most advanced starship.
Yevetha
Commodore
No matter who was selectedto to take on the part of the captain would've had a difficult challenge. I believe that in the future that this series willl be called a cult classic and Scott will be considered that he was a true Captain of the Enterprise.
My problem is that I was bought up on TOS and then given more incredible Trek series such as TNG, DS9 & Voyager. After all that I was expecting something equal but felt let down.
Anyone who has read the very posts I have put on the series knows that I do not blame the cast but the writers. I feel at times they rushed out the stories and worked at only trying to keep the franchise going, but sadly it back fired. There was so much they could've done such as shown how a lot ofthings came about, the asfer use of transporters, weaponary and such.
The series itsel;f has grown on over the past year and I truly want to put it up there with TOS, TNG etc, since getting the set on DVD, there are episodes I like but I still find it lacking.
My problem is that I was bought up on TOS and then given more incredible Trek series such as TNG, DS9 & Voyager. After all that I was expecting something equal but felt let down.
Anyone who has read the very posts I have put on the series knows that I do not blame the cast but the writers. I feel at times they rushed out the stories and worked at only trying to keep the franchise going, but sadly it back fired. There was so much they could've done such as shown how a lot ofthings came about, the asfer use of transporters, weaponary and such.
The series itsel;f has grown on over the past year and I truly want to put it up there with TOS, TNG etc, since getting the set on DVD, there are episodes I like but I still find it lacking.
Similar threads
