I don't think that's a fair assessment of The Good That Men Do. It was entirely consistent with what we saw in canon; it merely interpreted one highly problematical episode in a way that made it a better, more logical fit with the rest of canon.
Well, that's one person's opinion.
Myself, I'm more readily accepting of a few simple, localized implausibilities than a complex string of implausibilities operating on a massive scale.
If TATV had been taken literally, it would mean that the characters' lives remained completely static for a period of six years, encompassing the entire Earth-Romulan War. Any attempt to fill in that gap and cover the war years would've been hamstrung by the need to keep the characters totally rigid and unchanging. (...) Who goes through a war and isn't changed?
It's been a while since I've seen the episode, but I recall no mention of the Romulan War(s) having occured prior to the events of TATV. As for crews remaining static for extended periods of time: I present you the TOS crew. And the TNG crew. And two-thirds of the VOY crew. We've seen it happen many times before: either the crew are happy with where they are serving, or else there simply isn't much room for advancement (for instance, only a limited number of Warp 5 ships in the fleet). And these characters, particularly, who already demonstrated their static tendencies over the four years we did follow them, other than the juvenalia between T'Pol and Tucker.
And quite frankly, I was disgusted at how the writers jumped on the chance to mimic the "war against terrorism" in ENT with Archer's sort of "cowboy-diplomacy" of shooting now and asking questions later. Season 3, especially the beginning, was just painful to watch, especially in the ST-setting where diplomacy and a certain sense of respect for other cultures/species is underlying every action. (If there had been at least some kind of real criticism - not the kind that's pushed aside like it was in reality...)
This is slightly off-topic, but it's interesting how a few years distance and seeing the kinds of things Manny Coto's been arguing for in the past few years (and his work on 24) make it pretty clear what his political stripes are. The guy's barely a shade removed from Joel Surnow's "conservative," American imperialist apologism, and though Manny brought a lot of wonderful TOS elements back into Trek, the Xindi arc (at least the beginning) will always feel like some kind of pro-Bush allegory to me. Which, frankly, has no place in Trek, IMHO.
If the producers' intent was the craft a pro-Bush allegory, then they failed spectacularly. Yes, the first few episodes were harsh to watch, but they needed to be in order to establish the depth of the anger and grief (mirroring post-9/11 America) and to create an (ham-handed, admitedly) 'low' point from which the characters could then progress, insofar as there was character development on that show (and even in the opening episodes, it's worth noting that Reed stood up to Archer's Guantanamo-style tactics). Having set up the parallel, over the course of the season we gradually find it becomes necessary for Archer to question his assumptions about his foe, to evnetually get to know them, and finally make peace with factions amongst the Xindi to come close to preventing a second attack. The lesson here is neither 'stomp all evil-doers', nor a naive 'it's all just a misunderstanding'; it is about the need for an evidence-based approach to foreign policy and criminal investigation, for the bridging of cultural differences and suspicions to establish a mutually beneficial dialogue with the moderate elements of Xindi culture, and with the need for alliances as opposed to unilateral action (since Archer & Co. would never have prevented the attack without getting the Humanoids, Sloths and Aquatics or their side, or without the aid of the Andorians). The point of the Xindi arc was not to deny that conflicts like the War on Terror will arise, but to establish a contrast between the inept handling in real life and Trek's better approach--through diplomacy and cultural cooperation.
Hey, I like T'Ryssa. Sure she can be annoying, but the TNG crew can be such a bunch of duds sometimes..she is needed to liven things up.
That's very much true. I thought she was a bit over the top at times, but it helps to remember that she was originally a crewmember aboard a Luna-class vessel, which tend to be more esoteric (or even the
Excalibur); the
Enterprise crew are quite likely a reflection of Picard's own command style, always a bit cool and aloof. It was particularly wise an addition when one considers how much emphasis TNG as a series put on notions of potential and opportunity, of making sure those options for growth were always open, but then never actually pursuing any of them. T'Ryssa's sometimes-impulsive,
carpe diem attitude is the opposite extreme, and a nice shake-up of an otherwise stolid order... except that it comes at a time when characters like Picard and Crusher are finally are taking their opportunities as well, so I suppose it's part of a more general theme than a counterpoint strictly speaking.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
