There's a "best captain" poll going on right now @ General Trek discussion, and Jonathan Archer isn't really doing well (8/175 - 4.57%), and in the previous poll he did even worse (9/246 - 3.66%). In another thread here at ENT forum, a poster said: Is Archer really so heavily disliked among the general Trekkie population, and if so, why do you think that is? I personally prefer Kirk, Picard and Sisko over Archer, but compared to Janeway, I consider him to be at least as good as her, if not better. Now, I must admit that I liked Mulgrew's performance better than Bakula's (the actress was okay, but the Janeway character made some questionable choices that never sat well with me), and to me, he never really had the charisma of Shatner, Brooks and/or Stewart, but did he suck? Hell no!
I voted in one of those polls and I just happen to think Kirk was the best of the captains. That doesn't mean I hate Archer. I confess I disliked Archer frequently in seasons one and two when the writers couldn't settle on who they wanted him to be: -- mentor (Hoshi, Fight or Flight); -- jerk who ignores the science officer he brought on board (Strange New World); -- meddler who endangers people who didn't ask for his help (Andorian Incident, Marauders); -- a "friend" who releases a rapist who assaulted T'Pol (Fusion); -- devoted friend who fights to keep his science officer (Shadows of P'Jem); -- devoted friend who hands off the last of his water to save his chief engineer (Desert Crossing); -- "diplomat" who would put his ship and crew at risk rather than apologize for a bad decision (ANIS); -- diplomat who prevents a war between two allies (Cease Fire); -- first-contact ambassador who left his principles in low-Earth orbit (Cogenitor); -- captain who endangers his own life to save a crewman (Minefield). Fortunately the writers got their acts together and we got a much better, credible captain in S3-S4.
Perhaps Janeway's count reflects the protest voting over her demise in the novels? I actually voted for Archer for similar reasons, recognizng that compared to other Captains, most of his saga is largely incomplete. We know the broadstrokes of history but none of the detail. The legendary stuff will remain guesswork and suppostion based on the library computer screen from "In A Mirror, Darkly Part II" and the history he gets live through... http://web.mac.com/mike.sussman/mikesussman/IAMDArcherbio2.html
I hope that I'll not step on anybody's toes with this comment, but... Seen from the perspective of a non-American, Captain Archer (particularly the Captain Archer of the early seasons) represented almost every bad American trait so abhorred by the rest of the world (particularly during the George W. Bush era)... arrogant, narrow-minded, capricious, self-righteous, whingy, pretentious, yet plagued by a whole bunch of inferiority complexes at the same time... need I go on? P.S. Remember, I wrote 'bad traits' and 'George W. Bush era'. More than any other Star Trek series, ENT was very, very much a product of its time (TOS was made during the Cold War era, but tried to overcome contemporary prejudices, while ENT, on the other hand, literally wallowed in each and every post-911 preconception). Despite that (or perhaps just because of that), I like it... If nothing else, it proves, particularly when seen in the wider context of the Star Trek franchise, that mankind can actually cast off mindsets like these.
I am not a fan of Archer and have not been since the first episode. for some reason he just put me off. Can't blame Bakula as he just played Archer as he was written. I think that Archer was a poor Officer and poor commander because he didn't seem to trus his subordinates which seems to be why he was always being the guy who took all of the risks. Of course some of this may be because I wanted an Ensemble series not a one hero seris.
What was there not to love? It was an 88-part Quantum Leap episode, save the 1 disappointing visit by Al.
I liked Archer. He's my second favorite character after Mr. Spock, but not my favorite captain. As a captain, he -- as the writers intentionally set up -- made lots of mistakes. Picard is my favorite captain; the guy hardly made mistakes thanks to years of training and information from previous captains. What made Archer a bad captain? Archer was sometimes impetuous. Sometimes he saved a person rather than focus on his main goal as we see in Similitude, Twilight, Impulse, etc. And I think that's why he's an interesting character, but not a great captain. Interesting characters are flawed. Best captains have few flaws.
Admittedly I didn't watch in those concluding seasons when the show apparently improved, but when I watched as ENT first came out and when I've watched reruns since, he was just so...bland, so ordinary. Not an ordinary person so much as an ordinary captain: "right" gender, "right" race, "right" appearance, "right" accent, even made the "right" kinds of mistakes (at least early on). He was almost a stereotype of a starship captain, circa whenever it was that Shatner was cast as Kirk. The difference is that Shatner was cast in the 1960s. From a show made when ENT was made, I had higher expectations. I prefer my captains to be more challenging, more individual, and much less, you know, the typical gallant starship captain who takes off into the unknown. I watch a lot of old sci-fi - and I mean old sci-fi. I love it when it's good, and I love it when it's cheesy. Anyway, it seems to me as though both Bakula himself and the part he played were straight out of a pre-Trek era. They wouldn't hardly have needed to rewrite his role at all (again, this is in the early seasons) in order to put him in a late 1950s science fiction movie. In this case, that isn't intended as a compliment. Edit: Oh, and I meant to add that when I say "more challenging," that isn't a subtle way of saying he had to be female or a minority or anything like that, although that would have been fine, too. Just not so All-American boy is what I mean.
Don't knock ENT's strengths! It works out best for everyone in the end that ENT was really just Quantum Leap: The Next Generation Been nice had Al shown up more than effing once
Archer as a captain suffered the same problem as Janeway - different visions by different writers and sometimes really goofy circumstances. I want to love him and I would so serve on his Enterprise but I voted Janeway because she was such a stalwart character. Don't want him to be but Picard is my second favorite because even when you disagreed with his decisions you knew he wasn't second guessing himself and he was consistent if he was anything - duty duty duty. You don't want your captain to be your drinking buddy - you want your captain to be right. Of course this is Monday and I may feel differently by Tuesday.
This: And this. I like Janeway, but not Archer. I like Mulgrew, but not Baklula. I'm not a talifan though.
No disrespect or attack on Bakula. I like the actor very much. But Archer? No thank you. No amount of reset switches can attain for "Strange New Worlds" for being the one captain I would never serve under. Moral is, you can't be scared of the wind, but when it actually starts shaking things up a bit, RUN!
I don't think you stepped on any toes you should really worry about. I am a very patriotic American, and I agree with what you said 100%. And yet, I really like Bakula. He was awesome in Quantum Leap, and he's awesome to his fans.
I for one liked Archer and Bakula. I did not love the character, but I really liked him. But, I think the real star of the show was Trinneer's Trip Tucker. What a delightful character!
I actually think he acted it perfectly, and that the character just kinda sucked. Everyone thought it was a blurry, horrible-looking picture of a beautiful bird, but in fact, it was a beautifully-taken picture of a blurry, horrible-looking bird. - paraphrased and probably badly-remembered quote from Douglas Adams, seems apt here.