Maybe we (critics) were wrong regarding Archer.

[commodore64]

Lady Conqueror, I hear ya about "getting your head checked before getting into another argument about ANIS." I'll join in, too.

The whole point of the episode was that Archer made some mistakes and agreed to deal with them at the end. It's why he and T'Pol, he and Phlox, he and Trip, he and Hoshi, etc. all argue.

He's wrong. And he admits it and realizes it before the episode has concluded.

 

[HRHTheKING]

blockaderunner said:
When I was a kid, like most Americans, I was raised to believe that the Founding Fathers was this noble, righteous, unified group batting against tyranny.

It was when the History Channel aired its documentary The Founding Fathers, it was a different story. Yes, they did fight against tyranny. But most of the times they were hardly noble, righteous, or unified. They were petty, vindictive, vain, argued with each other, and even killed each other (Hamilton/Burr duel). Dispite their human flaws, they were able to forge a pretty good democracy.

Maybe, just maybe, that was what B&B were trying to aim for when it came to Archer. We fans assumed that the person who laid the groundwork for the Federation, "Kirk's Childhood Hero" if you will, would be this exceptional human being and exceptional soldier/statesman in the making. So most of us were upset to see that this great man turned out to be an incompitent, whiny, wooden, petulant, baby. But perhaps that's the point. History is written by the winners. Perhaps the Federation doesn't want the "real" Archer in the history books because the historical one, the legendary one, is the one who inspires people to greater things (i.e. join Starfleet). I'm not exonerating B&B or hailing them as geniuses. But either this was interesting aspect of ENT which showed their insight in the perception vs. the truth of historic figures, or it was just a happy accident. What do you think?

I think your post is far deeper than Berman and Braga are capable of comprehending.

Archer was just a dud character. The critics are correct.

 

[bluedana]

Lady Conqueror and Commodore64: Yup.

 

[Nebusj]

HRHTheKING said:
I think your post is far deeper than Berman and Braga are capable of comprehending.

Archer was just a dud character. The critics are correct.

Yeah, Archer was a dud. It could have worked out to show that Kirk's Childhood Hero started out desperately unready and grew with agonizing slowness into his position except that, well, we never heard of this Archer guy before July of 2001 and Kirk never said one word about liking the guy.

So the only impression we got was what was presented in the show, and from the first season that appears mostly to be a guy who now and then thinks to ask his science officer for advice, gets quite reasonable-sounding opinions, and then ignores it for petulant reasons, often ending up held captive.

Showing him turn into a Titanic Figure is a fine premise, but we have to see early hints of this potential greatness or else he just looks like a schlub.

 

[Gallimaufry]

I love Scott Bakula, but something about him as Archer just never quite seemed right to me. I think he needed a sense of childish glee to make it all click and I was never quite sure he nailed that.

 

[SFRabid]

So who do you think should have been captain?

 

[Ptrope]

Bruce Campbell! (yes, I'm totally serious - I've always thought The Chin would've been perfect for Archer)

 

[Captain X]

It wouldn't have mattered who they cast, the character would've been treated the same.

 

[JiNX-01]

Kegek said:
... But Archer is a boring speaker. That's death to me for a character. If you can't monologue well, what's the point?

Well, consider the quality of writing in "The Gazelle" vs. "Let's Explore it Together" ... Two seasons isn't the only thing that separates these speeches!

 

[Ptrope]

Captain X said:
It wouldn't have mattered who they cast, the character would've been treated the same.

Probably not. I think Campbell would've created a completely different delivery, and as a result, the writers might've treated Archer differently, as well. This isn't unheard of in film or television.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I was actually rooting for the 22nd to be grittier and nastier than the sanitized 23rd C and the ultra-sanitized 24th. But Archer didn't come off as a gutsy, none-too-persnickety about morals kind of guy. He came off as weak and petty. That's not the right approach at all.

My favorite Founding Fathers are: John Adams (crabby jerk); Sam Adams (hothead); Thomas Paine (tinfoil-hat kook); and Ben Franklin (cynical lech). Put that crew on the Enterprise, and we've got something.

 

[Lady Conqueror]

JiNX-01 said:
Well, consider the quality of writing in "The Gazelle" vs. "Let's Explore it Together" ... Two seasons isn't the only thing that separates these speeches!

The Gazelle speech was supposed to be bad though - that's why it didn't work and T'Pol had to step in to save the day.

I always thought it was a nice play on future Trek Captains' whose speeches always seemed to put everyone in their place (no matter how bad or good they were). Instead we get the reaction you'd expect, a big from all concerned. I thought it was funny.

 

[Anna Yolei]

Captain X said:
It wouldn't have mattered who they cast, the character would've been treated the same.

Agreed, although some actors are far better suited for certain roles over others. I don't think TPTB had a clear idea *what* Archer was supposed to be, so it wouldn't matter if Bakula or Campbell or anyone else took the role.