How could anyone say Archer was the best captain?

[ReadyAndWilling]

To me, he is by far the worst. I'm watching TNG right now and Picard is so much better in every respect. Don't misunderstand me, ENT was a marvelous show, it certainly had some of the best moments in all of the Trek's.

The actor was far too weak IMO.

 

[Michael]

You got me confused. Is this about Scott Bakula's abilities as an actor or how well Jon Archer performed as a captain?

 

[Kegg]

I don't recall ever seeing anyone say Archer was the best captain, and assuming there are people of that persuasion... there really aren't very many.

Kirk, Picard and Sisko tend to be the top picks around here.

 

[EnsignRicky]

I just popped in to see if there was a good answer to this question, because I aint got it.

I like Scott Bakula though, in the right roll he's actually pretty good.

 

[Misfit Toy]

How could anyone say Archer was the best captain? Easy. Different people have different opinions.

 

[Geckothan]

How could anyone say Archer was the best captain?

Well they could if they're delusional.

 

[NIUPonyBoy]

In some aspects Archer was better than Picard and his pacifist ways.

 

[Sci]

To be fair to Captain Archer, how many other Star Trek captains can claim to have almost single-handedly united four hostile species into an enduring alliance? In some ways, he really is the Simon Bolivar/George Washington/Thomas Jefferson/John Adams/Toussaint L'ouverture/Giuseppe Garibaldi of the Federation.

 

[SFRabid]

I guess if someone watched three Prime Directive episodes in a row and got tired of Picard's condescending "let them die" attitude ...

That's why I tend to place Picard at #4 out of the 5 captains.

 

[Misfit Toy]

How could anyone say Archer was the best captain?

Well they could if they're delusional.

Again, different people, different opinions - don't resort to insults.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

I guess if someone watched three Prime Directive episodes in a row and got tired of Picard's condescending "let them die" attitude ...

That's why I tend to place Picard at #4 out of the 5 captains.

Obviously Archer would never take such an attitude

To the OP, I don't think many people actually do think Archer's the best. Kirk and Picard would probably get the most votes, with Sisko coming in third. Janeway also has a sizeable following, even if many don't like her, whereas I haven't noticed much of an Archer fanbase. However, inevitably with so many Trekkies out there, some will pick Archer as their favourite. I wouldn't, but it takes all sorts.

I haven't been able to warm to Archer, but having seen Scott Bakula in other stuff I think he's a decent actor.

 

[SFRabid]

I guess if someone watched three Prime Directive episodes in a row and got tired of Picard's condescending "let them die" attitude ...

That's why I tend to place Picard at #4 out of the 5 captains.

Obviously Archer would never take such an attitude

Note that I never said who I normally place at number 5.

Spoiler: Hmmm. Which would be five?

Archer and Janeway usually flip back and forth between 3 and 5 depending on which set of writers I'm currently mad at.

 

[Who_Trek]

Archer's not my favorite (Capt. Sisko is), but he had his moments. Quite a few of them, for that matter.

 

[JiNX-01]

I wouldn't say Archer was the best captain, certainly nothing to brag about in the first two seasons. Very poorly written: cranky, irritable and impatient, bigoted, (a petulant teenager in a man's body, whining about Soval beating up Daddy's Big Dream). These traits are inexplicable in a man who is chosen to become humanity's extra-solar ambassador.

But I would say he was the most interesting. He made an ass of himself, he wasn't perfect, he wasn't pure, and he certainly wasn't boring. And he was the only captain (IMO, anyway) who actually showed any growth during the series.

He was actually affected by the actions he took, felt guilt, shame, got mad when he or others screwed up.

 

[lceb]

Best captain, worst captain... who can say? all of them managed to bring their missions to an end succesfully. For me he was the most human of them all, not perfect, not always sure of himself, making mistakes and learning from them and always trying for the best.

 

[Myasishchev]

To be fair to Captain Archer, how many other Star Trek captains can claim to have almost single-handedly united four hostile species into an enduring alliance?.

Sisko, kinda. Feds, Klings, Rommies and finally Cardies.

Edit: oh, enduring. Well, it endured long enough.

 

[number6]

I wouldn't say Archer was the best captain, certainly nothing to brag about in the first two seasons. Very poorly written: cranky, irritable and impatient, bigoted, (a petulant teenager in a man's body, whining about Soval beating up Daddy's Big Dream). These traits are inexplicable in a man who is chosen to become humanity's extra-solar ambassador.

But I would say he was the most interesting. He made an ass of himself, he wasn't perfect, he wasn't pure, and he certainly wasn't boring. And he was the only captain (IMO, anyway) who actually showed any growth during the series.

He was actually affected by the actions he took, felt guilt, shame, got mad when he or others screwed up.

Not poorly written.. Deliberately written.

Archer was intended to be a flawed character, who learns to look past his prejudices and become the commander achetype we see in the other series.. That was the whole purpose of Archer.

 

[SilentP]

Best captain, worst captain... who can say? all of them managed to bring their missions to an end succesfully. For me he was the most human of them all, not perfect, not always sure of himself, making mistakes and learning from them and always trying for the best.

This. To me, he's the 'evolving' human, the one trying to better himself, to learn, explore, the 'rough around the edges' early version of humanity that Picard refers to when he says 'we've learned to better ourselves', Archer is one of those first 'learners'.

The best? Not mine, but I wouldn't ding him for it. Bakula acted him OK.

 

[Kegg]

Not poorly written.. Deliberately written.

Archer was intended to be a flawed character, who learns to look past his prejudices and become the commander achetype we see in the other series.. That was the whole purpose of Archer.

You can be both, actually. Archer was written to be a flawed character, but he had flaws and massive incompetence well above and beyond what the writers intended to imply he had.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I kinda think all the other captains had an advantage over Jonathan Archer.

Archer was the first Starfleet captain to captain the first Starship. He was going out into the well and truly unknown, he had no rules or prime directives to follow and had to use his own judgement to the fullest.
Unlike captains such as Picard or Janeway he didn't get academy training for space exploration and diplomacy, he didn't have the experience of previous captains to fall back on and use.

By all account Archer was indeed the best captain. All future captains either followed his lead of learnt from his mistakes.