How could anyone say Archer was the best captain?

[Kegg]

I think people are reading the character's backstory a little too much into this.

Work with me here:

I've just created a character.

Let's call him Lieb Strauss, named by thoroughly unironic parents who really liked the Blue Danube and had a vague understanding of German at best.

Now, Lieb was born into impoverished conditions IN THE FUTURE in Ethiopia. He had nothing but the skin on his back and a couple of rags, but when he was 14 he, with a little know-how and his innate genius skills, constructed a basic space jalopy that could get him as far as Mars. It's a good thing he flew off to Mars too - the first guy to even bother - because intergalactic aliens were occupying the planet and planning to conquer Earth, little knowing that the chain reaction would destroy the universe!

Somehow. I'm not sure of the science of this, but Lieb did because remember, he's a genius. So he's able to convince the aliens with his genius brain what they're doing is wrong, and so he saves the universe. The penniless Ethiopian also establishes a treaty of peace with the aliens, which is so inspiring that it unites the whole world as one nation.

Our one world free of prejudice and malice then elect Lieb as their leader, who constructs a bigger, more expensive space jalopy and sails out into the galaxy, either convincing aliens to sign up with his space treaty or using his genius skills to solve or eliminate the Big Problems plaguing the universe at large. By the time he dies at 140, he's shaped basically everywhere into a problem-free utopia.

Clearly, Lieb here lived in conditions way beneath any of the Star Trek captains, and also clearly accomplished more than any of them combined. Does that make him a better character? Hell no. He's the literary equivalent of a napkin doodle, just a random bunch of achievements I threw together to make the point I just did.

So, in analysing Archer as a character, don't give us excuses from his backstory or praise him for achievements that he was written to do. Have a look at how he's acted and how interesting he is in judging him with regards to the other captains - because hell, any hack (even me!) can make a character who accomplishes something, but it takes an actual writer - and a good actor in TV's case - to create an interesting one.

 

[Michael]

Well, I was just going to say that Archer was the best captain of them all, but now I'm convinced it's actually Captain Lieb Strauss.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I think the problem was the way they wrote the character.

He'd act like Picard sometimes, then act like Kirk. Sure, sometimes we all may act different ways, but to me it seemed inconsistent.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I think people are reading the character's backstory a little too much into this.

Work with me here:

I've just created a character.

Let's call him Lieb Strauss, named by thoroughly unironic parents who really liked the Blue Danube and had a vague understanding of German at best.

Now, Lieb was born into impoverished conditions IN THE FUTURE in Ethiopia. He had nothing but the skin on his back and a couple of rags, but when he was 14 he, with a little know-how and his innate genius skills, constructed a basic space jalopy that could get him as far as Mars. It's a good thing he flew off to Mars too - the first guy to even bother - because intergalactic aliens were occupying the planet and planning to conquer Earth, little knowing that the chain reaction would destroy the universe!

Somehow. I'm not sure of the science of this, but Lieb did because remember, he's a genius. So he's able to convince the aliens with his genius brain what they're doing is wrong, and so he saves the universe. The penniless Ethiopian also establishes a treaty of peace with the aliens, which is so inspiring that it unites the whole world as one nation.

Our one world free of prejudice and malice then elect Lieb as their leader, who constructs a bigger, more expensive space jalopy and sails out into the galaxy, either convincing aliens to sign up with his space treaty or using his genius skills to solve or eliminate the Big Problems plaguing the universe at large. By the time he dies at 140, he's shaped basically everywhere into a problem-free utopia.

Clearly, Lieb here lived in conditions way beneath any of the Star Trek captains, and also clearly accomplished more than any of them combined. Does that make him a better character? Hell no. He's the literary equivalent of a napkin doodle, just a random bunch of achievements I threw together to make the point I just did.

So, in analysing Archer as a character, don't give us excuses from his backstory or praise him for achievements that he was written to do. Have a look at how he's acted and how interesting he is in judging him with regards to the other captains - because hell, any hack (even me!) can make a character who accomplishes something, but it takes an actual writer - and a good actor in TV's case - to create an interesting one.

Your story also shows how some people that say Janeway was the best by saying "Look how much Borg ass she kicked!!!" are off the mark.
What if they wrote a story where she meets God and kicks his/her ass all over the place...is she the coolest thing ever now?
This also happens when idiots argues about whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better by saying that the Death Star could blow up the Enterprise. Ugh.

 

[bluedana]

I don't think Archer's the best captain, but he is my favorite. Part of the reason is that he does make mistakes, and mostly learns from them. He acts his emotions - there aren't any "to be or not to be" soliloquys, he just puts himself on the line for his mission and his crew again and again. He was, actually, written to be flawed, impulsive and a bit prejudiced against Vulcans, and the mini-arc of his character growth in the pilot was expanded throughout the first season and beyond. The Archer of Terra Prime is not the same person as the Archer of Fight or Flight.

I couldn't really say who would be the best captain, maybe Sisko because he's also in sort of uncharted territory (trying to balance among all these different interests) and does a good job at it.

 

[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.

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.

I was fine that Archer had flaws. I was fine that he made mistakes. I consider the character to be poorly written because his personality was all over the place.

Case in point: He hates having T'Pol on the Broken Bow mission, but at the end of the episode he asks her to remain as his science officer. Then he ignores her counsel, invites to her regularly dine with him and Trip, then in the next scene he's treating her like crap. And when a Vulcan ship turns up and he gives her dirty looks like it's her fault.

 

[Kegg]

Pretty much agreeing with JiNX-01 on Archer's personality. And, occasionally, there's just some bad writing - take his notorious gazelle speech from the start of the second season. This is just laughable but it is not intended to be seen as such - Archer is occasionally the victim of the writers going for a noble sentiment or intelligence or some other nice attribute and plain falling short.

Well, I was just going to say that Archer was the best captain of them all, but now I'm convinced it's actually Captain Lieb Strauss.

Aw, thanks.

Your story also shows how some people that say Janeway was the best by saying "Look how much Borg ass she kicked!!!" are off the mark.
What if they wrote a story where she meets God and kicks his/her ass all over the place...is she the coolest thing ever now?
This also happens when idiots argues about whether Star Trek or Star Wars is better by saying that the Death Star could blow up the Enterprise. Ugh.

Precisely. In fact, the argument there was resolved pretty much the same way I just did - some of the people on the Star Wars side of the debate were consulted as advisors for the Attack of the Clones technical manual, and they gave their high-estimate figures for the damage that can be done by Star Wars universe weapons. Since Star Wars technical manuals are canon and the Star Trek side was dependent on lower estimates, they won by default.

But you know what? The weapons on Lieb Strauss' second space jalopy are even more powerful than the Death Star or any other Star Wars superweapons, not that he ever needs to use them. So neener-neener-neener, Star Wars fans.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Precisely. In fact, the argument there was resolved pretty much the same way I just did - some of the people on the Star Wars side of the debate were consulted as advisors for the Attack of the Clones technical manual, and they gave their high-estimate figures for the damage that can be done by Star Wars universe weapons.

More accurately the SW manual was written by a fan who had put up an entire website calculating the energy outputs of SW weaponary.

 

[T'Girl]

Take into account that Archer had the weakest starship of any of the captains, there were problem he didn't have the resources to solve. He also possessed the least training.

My best captain would be Kirk, followed by the klingon general Martok.

And when a Vulcan ship turns up and he gives her dirty looks like it's her fault.

She is the first officer, that makes it her fault.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Take into account that Archer had the weakest starship of any of the captains, there were problem he didn't have the resources to solve. He also possessed the least training.

But you see this is another example of treating a fictional element as though it's real.
Archer wasn't very good because the writers would make him act like Kirk sometimes, then like Picard at others all in an attempt to please everybody that liked those previous shows.

 

[T'Girl]

Take into account that Archer had the weakest starship of any of the captains, there were problem he didn't have the resources to solve. He also possessed the least training.

But you see this is another example of treating a fictional element as though it's real.
Archer wasn't very good because the writers would make him act like Kirk sometimes, then like Picard at others all in an attempt to please everybody that liked those previous shows.

But I don't see it that way. I think it's almost "cheating" to say, the problem was writer did this, or Gene Roddenberry had this view of women, or it was the special effects put the ships half a mile apart. Whether or not Archer is a good captain should be based on what you and I see on the screen. The inconsistent behavor of Archer has to be reconciled to somthing real, I don't know, a mood swing or some other human experiance.

One explanation might be that when captain Archer took command of the Enterprise, he was under the impression that he was going to primarily a explorer and maybe a diplomatic dude too. My understanding was that Archer didn't even want the Enterprise to have weapons. He was increasing out of his depth, he learned quickly and did the best he could in a role he never wanted. He did seriously consider quiting. This idea could have explained his shifts in behavor.

Other possibilities exist too.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Take into account that Archer had the weakest starship of any of the captains, there were problem he didn't have the resources to solve. He also possessed the least training.

But you see this is another example of treating a fictional element as though it's real.
Archer wasn't very good because the writers would make him act like Kirk sometimes, then like Picard at others all in an attempt to please everybody that liked those previous shows.

But I don't see it that way. I think it's almost "cheating" to say, the problem was writer did this, or Gene Roddenberry had this view of women, or it was the special effects put the ships half a mile apart. Whether or not Archer is a good captain should be based on what you and I see on the screen. The inconsistent behavor of Archer has to be reconciled to somthing real, I don't know, a mood swing or some other human experiance.

One explanation might be that when captain Archer took command of the Enterprise, he was under the impression that he was going to primarily a explorer and maybe a diplomatic dude too. My understanding was that Archer didn't even want the Enterprise to have weapons. He was increasing out of his depth, he learned quickly and did the best he could in a role he never wanted. He did seriously consider quiting. This idea could have explained his shifts in behavor.

Other possibilities exist too.

I can agree if you want to keep it all 'in-world'

I was just being careful because some people do argue that one Captain is better than another because he/she blew up more bad guys...which is as easy to do as it is for the writers to write if you know what I mean.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

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.

Sisko had a lot of growth over the course of DS9.

Your story also shows how some people that say Janeway was the best by saying "Look how much Borg ass she kicked!!!" are off the mark.
What if they wrote a story where she meets God and kicks his/her ass all over the place...is she the coolest thing ever now?

That would be awesome.

 

[Anji]

I will always give Bakula a standing ovation for single-handedly developing Archer...and I've never seen an actor work harder at doing it...but he never had a chance to make him great. He had no support from the writers.

 

[RyuRoots]

After seeing some of ENT, my thoughts on Archer largely amount to "THIS is the guy you send to represent the human race? Oy vey, don't expect anyone to hold high opinions of us."

I mean, he acts like an impulsive teenager, not man as a part of a uniformed service who is entrusted with representing Earth and exploring with our interests in mind. I wonder if he only got his position because of nepotism sometimes. His daddy made the engine, so he makes captain.

Sisko is flawed. He has problems and issues, but he's an interesting character, a lot of times because of those. Archer is an incompetent fool, at least from everything I've seen.

 

[ChristopherPike]

shrugs

If somebody wanted to say that, I'd accept that was their right and move on.

There were plenty of examples in Enterprise to justify such a position.

Hell, fans say Christopher Pike was the best Captain despite only two appearances (in the prime universe that is)... and the first time we meet him, he wanted to jack it all in and become a dealer in Orion slave girls! That guy didn't come up the idea of an alliance, bringing together Andorians and Vulcans... who were unlikely allies given their portrayal in the show, mostly at each others throats.

 

[Neutral Zone]

I've always thought Picard, Kirk and Janeway (in that order) were the best Captains. I have never rated Archer as a good captain, Scott Bukula is a good actor but I don't think he quite managed to get the best out of the role. Maybe if they had used someone else the portrayel of trhe Captain may have turned out different?

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I've always thought Picard, Kirk and Janeway (in that order) were the best Captains. I have never rated Archer as a good captain, Scott Bukula is a good actor but I don't think he quite managed to get the best out of the role. Maybe if they had used someone else the portrayel of trhe Captain may have turned out different?

Ah, we forget that Sisko is a Captain as well...

My picks:

Sisko, Kirk, Picard, Janeway...and then Archer...(Believe it or not, Sisko/Kirk/Picard/Janeway all have their own gravitas as commanders; I cannot say the same for Archer)...

I do agree with you on a different actor for the role; I don't think Bakula is a bad actor, just bad for Archer.

 

[BillJ]

I've been rewatching Enterprise lately and don't find Archer nearly as bad as I did the first time around. There are definitely some head scratching decisions he made, but I'd still place him above Picard and Janeway.

 

[SFRabid]

Worst captain - Archer seasons 1 and 2.
One of the best captains - Archer seasons 3 and 4.