There would have been resistance, certainly. But it still would have made our world a better place.
Spoilers Captain Archer's Response in Cogenitor
- Thread starter KlingonCereal
- Start date
There would have been resistance, certainly. But it still would have made our world a better place.
So if you come across a single ship with a slave you shouldn't rescue the slave because maybe the rest of their society are even nicer than the ship of polite slave owners?
I think Archer had a hard time getting his priorities straight. For instance, when he got to the planet cowboy he should have quickly assessed that it had nothing to do with his vital mission of... saving the Earth from total destruction... and moved on ( while making a side note that this mystery would have to be investigated later if and when the crisis was over) He had no business wasting time and resources on that planet. Not to mention breaking someone out of jail in defiance of the local laws.
If the Xindi destroyed Earth, this here was just about the only viable Earth Colony worth resettling by the survivors.
If the Prime Directive existed, it would be a problem.
I don't know. Dolim made it clear that he would hunt down every human settlement, no matter how small and remote, and this one was pretty close to the Xindi planet to have any chance of survival.
I've not watched this episode since it was on the proper telly! Pretty traumatic stuff IIRC...
#sensitivesoul
#sensitivesoul
Just got to the scene with ((Tomalak)) and Archer in the pod, seems like they're perpetuating the idea that humanity hasn't progressed much in terms of literature in 600 years!
I am not sure if literature progresses the way science does. I mean the library of Alexandria contained hundreds of thousands of books (Wiki says 400, 000 scrolls) from all around the world, most of which have been lost forever after it was destroyed. So there was already plenty of literature two thousand years ago.
That's one thing worthwhile we could do if we could get (somehow) information from the past,. It's retrieve these 400, 000 scrolls that have been lost. Talk about a cultural treasure!!!
WWIII.
Cities burnt to the ground.
EMP wiping clean every server on the planet.
!0 Years of lawyer murdering savagery neglect.
A lot of books would not have made it to the other said of that.
Last edited:
In "Twilight" we see that come to pass as well. Earth was just ground zero.
You couldn't build a modern colony there.
The refugees would have to pretend to be cowboys.
The refugees would have to pretend to be cowboys.
Star Trek: Westworld
If they can pretend to be androids, that is...
Archer was put in a tough spot. I don't blame him for chewing out Trip at the end of episode.
In the scheme of things, I don't really fault Archer for the decision that he made in returning the cogenitor Charles, even though Charles was deserving of asylum imo, particularly since it appeared that Charles requested asylum on his/her own volition.
But didn't Archer have geopolitical factors, as well as a self-imposed non-interference policy, to consider? Geopolitics -- good relations with the Vissians -- among other factors, trumped an individual's liberty in this instance, unfortunately.
I didn't think Archer had a strong hand to play against the Vissians, especially if things turned ugly between the Enterprise and the Vissians. It was tragic that Charles was a pawn in this affair. It may be seen as the cowardly, or cynical, decision. I wished a better outcome for Charles.
-----
On a slightly different matter, about that scene where Archer chewed out Trip, when I saw that, I couldn't help but think that Archer is the least intimidating Star Trek captain, compared to all the ST captains that came before him.
Archer has an easy going persona. He is the low-key captain to a very down to earth (so to speak) crew. It's the right match. One of the reasons why I love the series.
In the scheme of things, I don't really fault Archer for the decision that he made in returning the cogenitor Charles, even though Charles was deserving of asylum imo, particularly since it appeared that Charles requested asylum on his/her own volition.
But didn't Archer have geopolitical factors, as well as a self-imposed non-interference policy, to consider? Geopolitics -- good relations with the Vissians -- among other factors, trumped an individual's liberty in this instance, unfortunately.
I didn't think Archer had a strong hand to play against the Vissians, especially if things turned ugly between the Enterprise and the Vissians. It was tragic that Charles was a pawn in this affair. It may be seen as the cowardly, or cynical, decision. I wished a better outcome for Charles.
-----
On a slightly different matter, about that scene where Archer chewed out Trip, when I saw that, I couldn't help but think that Archer is the least intimidating Star Trek captain, compared to all the ST captains that came before him.
Archer has an easy going persona. He is the low-key captain to a very down to earth (so to speak) crew. It's the right match. One of the reasons why I love the series.
Last edited:
Archer has this brain condition that every once in a while compels him to behave like a total jerk. (That should have been part of the series bible.)
It would be interesting to know if the Vissians would have used their ship's vastly superior firepower against Enterprise. Drennik did not make any threat against them, after all.
As for Charles's outcome, it does make you think... did Trip do her a favor, by making her realize that her existence was a living hell? Or is ignorance bliss, even under those conditions?
the ending shoud have gone more into a slavery theme, maybe how Archer would talk with the Visian captain about our problems, and how we see where there doing to the coginetors. With the Visian captain agreeing to talk to there political body for more coginetor rights. Beause, you sometimes can't see the forest from the trees.
Similar threads
