Most Overrated Character

[DarKush]

Yeah, I think both Nyotarules and Eyeresist both make points. The technical point goes to Eyeresist, however Nyotarules makes a good point as well. Within the Trek universe to create that sense of continuity 24th century Trek did reference Kirk and other things that occurred during the original series. And vice versa Enterprise made references to the original series and 24th century Trek. Within the context of the Trek universe it would make sense for a TOS or 24th century Trek character to mention Archer or the NX-01 at one point. Especially since the NX-01 played crucial parts in the Vulcan Reformation, first contact with the Klingons, building up the Federation, encountering the Borg, and perhaps other things. I get why that wasn't done of course since Enterprise wasn't around during TOS and 24th century Trek, but within the universe itself it is a bit curious that none of the characters or events in Enterprise were never mentioned in later centuries Trek.

It's no deal breaker for me, but it would've been nice. And Nemesis did reference Archer and Abrams Trek also mentioned an Admiral Archer.

 

[Nyotarules]

Yeah, I think both Nyotarules and Eyeresist both make points. The technical point goes to Eyeresist, however Nyotarules makes a good point as well. Within the Trek universe to create that sense of continuity 24th century Trek did reference Kirk and other things that occurred during the original series. And vice versa Enterprise made references to the original series and 24th century Trek. Within the context of the Trek universe it would make sense for a TOS or 24th century Trek character to mention Archer or the NX-01 at one point. Especially since the NX-01 played crucial parts in the Vulcan Reformation, first contact with the Klingons, building up the Federation, encountering the Borg, and perhaps other things. I get why that wasn't done of course since Enterprise wasn't around during TOS and 24th century Trek, but within the universe itself it is a bit curious that none of the characters or events in Enterprise were never mentioned in later centuries Trek.

It's no deal breaker for me, but it would've been nice. And Nemesis did reference Archer and Abrams Trek also mentioned an Admiral Archer.

'The Good that men do' does a retcon that due to the Romulan War that aspect of Starfleet history is not well known. Does that explaination work? Not for me!
The holobook shown in TATV is accepted as truth until middleaged Nog comes along and spots all the holes and tells middle aged Jake all about it.
Even the bad guys in ST09 mentions Kirk as a famous name in earth history. And what is Admiral Archer doing still alive 100 years later, he must be well over 150! Did reboot humanity practise Eugenics after all! LOL

 

[DarKush]

I forgot about that holobook/deck stuff in TGTMD. I haven't read that book in a long time. While I loved the idea of TGTMD at the time now I'm not so sure about it. And it doesn't make much sense to me that Nog would be the only one who would have figured that out. I mean that holographic record has been around a long time. Granted, maybe Section 31 got to the others who had saw the inconsistencies, I don't know.

As for Archer being around 100 years later I don't think that's that big of a deal. I mean humans are long lived in Trek, though we hadn't really seen that until Admiral McCoy in Encounter at Farpoint. Also it's possible that the Archer reference in Trek '09 was not Jonathan Archer but perhaps a descendant? Lame I know, but the fans would catch the reference and speculate or think it was NX-01 Archer and I think that's what the producers were going for. A valentine to the fans.

 

[eyeresist]

'The Good that men do' does a retcon that due to the Romulan War that aspect of Starfleet history is not well known. Does that explaination work? Not for me!

Well, if you're determined to hate, there's not much we can do about that.

And what is Admiral Archer doing still alive 100 years later, he must be well over 150! Did reboot humanity practise Eugenics after all! LOL

As mentioned, humans probably live a lot longer in the future. Or it could be a descendant. Or Archer had some sort of adventure which made him long-lived or sent him to the future. Or -- technically we don't hear about Archer, only about his "prize-winning beagle", so it may well be Porthos who was made immortal or projected into the future! Or maybe this was a post-taxidermy Porthos, which Scotty stole from a museum or otherwise acquired to use in his experiment.
There are all sorts of possible explanations, some of which may be explored in the novel-verse.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Archer's supposed awesomeness makes him overrated because he actually screws up all the time. This is due to inconsistent writing and "because the plot said so" logic. Janeway suffers from the same problem. The result is that they both come across as oddly psychotic, because they behave according to plot needs and not due to actual personality. Archer gets better in season 3, though. Janeway only gets more and more insane. o.O

...and this is coming from someone who likes both ENT and VOY, by the way. That doesn't mean both shows weren't severely flawed, each in their own way.

 

[T'Arwen]

Well, if you're determined to hate, there's not much we can do about that.

In defense of Nyota, I found The Good that Men Do to be meh and and I wanted to like it (anything that retcons or erases TATV is a noble cause in my book). For one, I found Reed getting Trip into section 31 to be OOC when he was trying so hard to be free of them in the show. And while the ending left the door open, something about the ending rubbed me the wrong way. Is is better than TATV? Of course but it's not saying much.

 

[Nyotarules]

In defense of Nyota, I found The Good that Men Do to be meh and and I wanted to like it (anything that retcons or erases TATV is a noble cause in my book). For one, I found Reed getting Trip into section 31 to be OOC when he was trying so hard to be free of them in the show. And while the ending left the door open, something about the ending rubbed me the wrong way. Is is better than TATV? Of course but it's not saying much.

Well Reed did feel guilty about the whole thing, the new Coalition was at war so desparate times and all that. After reading the Romula war books I'm surprised The Federation came about since Eartth was left to fend for herself for most of the war. The Vulcans aka T'Pau does not come out of it looking good at all.

 

[T'Arwen]

Since I wasn't wowed by TGTMD, I never bothered with the Romulan war books. Which further shuts down eyeresist. You couldn't have made it this far if you hated TGTMD.

 

[eyeresist]

Archer's supposed awesomeness makes him overrated because he actually screws up all the time. This is due to inconsistent writing and "because the plot said so" logic.

I don't see Archer as supposedly awesome. What's "awesome" about him is that he is just a man, who has found himself thrust into a position of great responsibility, both to Earth and to history. He is obviously always feeling that pressure.

Also, I wouldn't say he "screws up all the time". He does seem to find himself blamed a lot by various aliens for things that aren't really his fault. Unlike Kirk, he never ignored protocols and got his ship crippled as a result! (as in TWOK)

 

[CommanderRaytas]

No, he only took his dog down to an alien planet and let it pee on a sacred tree. Archer was the guy Starfleet thought was best suited for representing Earth in the vastness of unknown space. That implies everyone's faith in the man's diplomatic abilities, which he didn't have. He wasn't meant to be as inconsistent as he comes across. That's due to spotty writing, but it does get better as the series progresses.

I actually like the show, even the shlock. There's admittedly a lot of shlock.

 

[eyeresist]

^ What other instance of Archer screwing up can you recall?

 

[CommanderRaytas]

His conduct in The Andorian Incident counts, I think. There's the hallucinogenic pollen episode, the let's an entire race of people die out episode, he got captured and beaten up out of naiveté a lot (almost 30 times, iirc), the western show episode was a bunch of dumb decisions, he never listened to any advice etc. Honestly, I haven't watched the show for a while. I'd have to give it some thought, but there's a lot of plot-driven instances where the crew (and Archer in particular) make dumb decisions because otherwise the story wouldn't progress. In all fairness, there's a bunch of these in TNG, as well, every time a crewmember doesn't lock his/her workstation or the system gets easily hacked, or they just blindly beam somewhere. It's mostly little inconsistencies that make characters look psychotic because in one episode they do A, and in the other B, and it makes no sense.

I need to re-watch SFDebris's reviews for deeper analysis, though.

 

[eyeresist]

"Brave New World" and "Dear Doctor" do suffer from terrible writing decisions, but I don't recall anything similar in "North Star". I'll be watching it again later this year...

I think Archer might have been a masochist who actually enjoyed being beaten up!

 

[Nyotarules]

"...
I think Archer might have been a masochist who actually enjoyed being beaten up!

He had to find a way to deal with his T'Pol frustration.

 

[SPCTRE]

Hey don't be knocking Archer. When I was in my early twenties on a trip to East Africa, I saw a gazelle giving birth. It was truly amazing. Within minutes, the baby was standing up—standing up on its own. A few more minutes, and it was walking. And before I knew it it was running alongside its mother, moving away with the herd. Archer is a lot like that. He learns from his mistakes. That's what being a starship captain is all about. I'm sorry you can't see that.

/thread

 

[dregj]

tucker tucker tucker