Archer was the worst captain we've ever seen. (Yes, even worse than Shaw and Lorca).
The writers contriving reasons to make him a lynchpin of the lore as first federation president and responsible for bringing aliens together has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he was a good *captain* or not. And I would never in my life want to serve a single day under the command of a 'leader' like Archer.
So.....
People keep comparing Archer to all the other on screen captains we had and they keep saying 'he was so bad because he made mistakes they never made'. Well duh!!!
He's literally the first interstellar commanding officer Earth (not the UFP Starfleet) ever send out there. They have literally no clue what to expect. They needed someone with audacity and attitude but also humble enough to be willing to learn. He himself didn't realize he was that last part, his CO's saw that. And he lived up to it. When he needed to, he learned from his mistakes and took those lessons for the next time.
Archer was LITERALLY WRITTEN TO BE FLAWED!!!!! Because these are the people that needed to learn what NOT to do, so the hero's we know from TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, DSC, SNW, LD, PRO.... They all learned from the mistakes these people NEEDED to make. That is what exploring the human frontier is all about. That is what Star Trek is about.
Idk, who's the best. But Jaresh-Inyo is definitely the worst of the ones listed.
The qualities I liked about Archer, and I thought the writers did a great job in getting across with Enterprise, is that I think he comes across as genuinely curious about what lies "beyond the farthest star," and he seems honestly disappointed when they encounter hostility.Archer, for me, came across as utterly petulant which is a quality I just don’t find appealing in a captain.
(Would probably do me some good...)
I disagree, but that's politics for you. Nothing in your list was his fault.
A similar line was said by Ian Malcolm, in the first "Jurassic Park". When Mr. Hammond tries explaining why he brought back dinosaurs, Malcolm's reply is pretty much on the nose. He says flat-out, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."(Would probably do me some good...)
Anyway,'let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing it does not necessarily follow that we must do that thing.'
That line in JP wasn't spoken by Kurtwood Smith....A similar line was said by Ian Malcolm, in the first "Jurassic Park". When Mr. Hammond tries explaining why he brought back dinosaurs, Malcolm's reply is pretty much on the nose. He says flat-out, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
I'm confused. He said the line (nearly quoted accurately) was spoken by Jeff Goldblum's character, which it was.That line in JP wasn't spoken by Kurtwood Smith....
There are times—like now—when I miss vBulletin's nested comments. It was easier to follow a single conversation amongst the many in a thread.I'm confused. He said the line (nearly quoted accurately) was spoken by Jeff Goldblum's character, which it was.
It's a tangent, maybe even an off-topic tangent, but it's still true.There are times—like now—when I miss vBulletin's nested comments. It was easier to follow a single conversation amongst the many in a thread.
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/wha...r-trek-opinions.304751/page-956#post-14791151
He was President of the Federation?Anyway, Kirk FTW. James T.
Not to my knowledge, but we were discussing GOAT and WOAT captains as recently as *checks notes* this page, so....He was President of the Federation?
I know but the comment I made that started all this off was dropped as everyone was talking about Fed Presidents. Kurtwood Smith was my choice.Not to my knowledge, but we were discussing GOAT and WOAT captains as recently as *checks notes* this page, so....