Why no love for Archer?

[BillJ]

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:

I kept waiting for Archer to fall on a hand grenade to save us all from yet another lack-luster performance. It just wasn't meant to be.

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!

That was my quote.

Archer just wasn't the type of captain I was looking for in a Star Trek prequel. I was expecting someone more pragmatic, more a military man. In the real world it was just a poor fit between actor and writing.

I knew we were in trouble when they changed the characters name from Jackson Archer to Jonathan Archer.

 

[BillJ]

For the record I loathe Janeway as well (and the actress too).

 

[Praetor]

(I hope we can still be friends. )

(Hm, I'll have to think about it. )

Oh noes... *waits in suspense*

I think fans expect the same basic qualities in all captains ...

Mach5, I think your logic is flawed here. You list some very good points and I'd even say that most of them are the same things I look for in a Trek captain. But – and I think that's the very reason why many of the favorite captain threads always end in heated discussions – everyone has different selection criteria by which they judge their favorite captain. It wouldn't surprise me at all if many people just vote for the best looking captain. Or that with the nicest voice etc. etc. etc. You see, people will never expect the same qualities in their captains. At least that's how I look at it.

I think that's spot on, NCC-1701. There's a very strong 'emotional' component behind a lot of the reasons why people like who they like (as, really, there should be) and trying to compare medals and accomplishments almost always ends up a firefight.

 

[The Academic]

For the record I loathe Janeway as well (and the actress too).

My sentiments exactly...
Who wants to watch a series about a starship commanded by somebody who looks, talks and acts like one's mother-in-law? Star Trek or not, there is only so much a man can bear!

 

[CommanderRaytas]

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?

That's the thing- he was sort of a walking, talking American cliche in the early episodes, and he had a way of selling that attitude as "the way of the Humans", and that is really annoying. I mean, speak for yourself, mate, honestly.

His character improved over time, though, and actually grew on me. I never hated Archer.

 

[DarKush]

Scott Bakula always had a constipated look on his face, and he always moved uncomfortably as if he didn't quite feel comfortable playing Archer, perhaps he didn't quite get the guy, and I never quite got him either. But I don't blame Bakula for that, I blame the writers.

Bakula started off both as a daddy's boy and a biased jerk. What I didn't like was how he was never really called out for being biased. The writers pretty much just showed the Vulcans as confirming Archer, and to some extent, Trip's prejudices about them. T'Pol also largely came down on Archer's side. I was hoping when he carried Surak's katra that he would have a moment of clarity, that he would say something about how he understood Vulcans better, that perhaps they would show him learing more about Vulcan culture or at least it having a greater impact on him (i.e., Picard's experiences as Kamin or Sisko's encounter with the Prophets). But we pretty much got none of that.

What also made the character less appealing to me was how everyone said he was so great, how he was a linchpin to the Federation's creation, and we rarely got to see that. He bumbled his way through much of the series, but through the graces of the writers he was given this wonderful history that he didn't earn, perhaps like the Enterprise NX-01 itself. We saw the other captains repeatedly do great things-Kirk (V'Ger, the probe, the Genesis Device, Fed-Klingon peace; Picard-stopping the Borg invasion-twice, stopping the Romulan invasion of Vulcan, stopping Shinzon from destroying Earth, etc.; Sisko-helping lead Starfleet against the Dominion, ascending to a higher plane of existence; Janeway-stopping Species 8472, taking out the Borg Queen). To be fair, Archer did stop the Xindi from destroying Earth, he helped the Andorians and Tellarites become allies, and he also stopped the Romulans from subverting the Vulcan government, but I still don't buy how important or great he was.

There were times that I thought the character was okay. I liked his dark turn in Season 3. Bakula seemed to do better when Archer was given moral gray spots. And in Season 4, when he had the break down in "Home" over his actions in the Delphic Expanse. That was good stuff. I think Erika Hernandez was a good move on the writer's part and I wish she had been in the series earlier.

I think the writer's didn't quite know what to do with Archer, so he never really gelled as a consistent leader. Similar to Janeway. I never got a real feeling for her or her leadership, because it seemed more storyline-dictated than character-driven, unlike Kirk, Picard, and Sisko.

I also think the writers made a mistake by not taking another chance with the casting. Why not a Latino, Asian, Arab, etc., or hell, a Russian captain for Enterprise? With a Russian, it could've been a nice way to acknowledge their contributions to the space race.

 

[Praetor]

Archer started off both as a daddy's boy and a biased jerk. What I didn't like was how he was never really called out for being biased. The writers pretty much just showed the Vulcans as confirming Archer, and to some extent, Trip's prejudices about them.

What also made the character less appealing to me was how everyone said he was so great, how he was a linchpin to the Federation's creation, and we rarely got to see that. He bumbled his way through much of the series, but through the graces of the writers he was given this wonderful history that he didn't earn, perhaps like the Enterprise NX-01 itself.

I think the writer's didn't quite know what to do with Archer, so he never really gelled as a consistent leader. Similar to Janeway. I never got a real feeling for her or her leadership, because it seemed more storyline-dictated than character-driven, unlike Kirk, Picard, and Sisko.

Well said, DarKush. I whittled down your remarks to what, I feel, is in essence the crux of it. He was simultaneously set up with an expectation to be this great figure, yet was depicted as a very emotionally immature person. Coupled with inconsistent, plot-driven characterization, he was doomed from the get-go.

I also think the writers made a mistake by not taking another chance with the casting. Why not a Latino, Asian, Arab, etc., or hell, a Russian captain for Enterprise? With a Russian, it could've been a nice way to acknowledge their contributions to the space race.

Just demographically speaking, it was almost inexcusable for the crew to not include a Latino as a series regular, if not the Captain. In America, Latinos were and are the fastest-growing ethnic group, and it might have helped to draw in new viewers to include a well-thought-out Latino character - not just a token.

I'd say that the inclusion of a well-thought-out Arab character would have been a welcome one too, quite akin to Chekov's inclusion on TOS at a time when America was in the Cold War with the Soviets. 'Enterprise' premiered on September 26, 2001, just 15 days after the September 11th attack. The producers still managed to slip in references to the Taliban in the form of the Suliban. One might argue that there simply wasn't enough time to cast an Arab actor or create an Arab character, but I would argue that tensions had been building for several years, enough that it should have occurred to someone that such a gesture might have been a clever one.

Couple that with the fact that no Trek series has ever had a Latino or Arab regular, yet did have an Asian and a Russian on TOS. I'm not arguing for tokenism, I'm arguing for the well-balanced type of approach that allows not just for viewers of a particular ethnicity to be able to relate to a character that they feel is similar to them, but also to showing a future of peace and cooperation inspired originally by TOS.

Sorry. Tangent over.

 

[DarKush]

Thanks for your comments Praetor. I understand where you're coming from. It always struck me as interesting that ENT seemed to so at odds with a lot of the programming on UPN in terms of diversity, or at least having non-white American characters in the central roles, or getting the most development.

Perhaps having a Latino captain for example, might've helped ENT gain more notice in the media, giving B & B a chance to trumpet how progressive and relevant Trek still was-which is a matter for another debate-well, at least they could make the argument on the surface. Plus, it might have attracted a wider audience. Now to keep that audience, they needed better stories and better written characters across the board.

I'm not a fan of tokenism, and Trek has practiced it quite a bit IMO. Starting with Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov. As much as I like those characters and those actors, and understand the importance of what esp. Nichelle Nichols and George Takei did on a historical level, they were sidenote characters, with little inner lives. They eventually at least gave Sulu a captaincy and a daughter out of the blue.

Now I can understand why Sulu and Uhura got the token treatment, but it was inexcusable to do the same thing to Hoshi and Travis. I never bought the excuse that Anthony Montgomery wasn't a strong enough actor so that's why he didn't get a lot of lines. If he was strong enough to be cast in the role, then he was good enough to be a significant part of the show. Hoshi's development was also haphazardly done. So, as much as I would've liked some non-conventional casting where the captain and first officer, at least, were concerned, I wouldn't want them getting the Hoshi-Travis treatment.

But even before 9/11, they could've perhaps had an Arab character and a Jewish character who were friends, using the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for inspiration. Is it hitting you over the head with a hammer? Perhaps, but Trek hasn't always been known for subtlety, ex. "Let that Be Your Last Battlefield."

 

[Aquehonga]

Realism should've come into the picture. George Wendt should've played Archer. The "real" Archer would probably be someone like Wendt.

Also, it doesn't matter who plays Archer, or what they are either, if the material given them is lackluster or uninspiring.

Maybe they should've taken the easy road & made Archer a mechanical man. The 1st ENT had a robot/android skipper.

The casting is easy. Felix Silla back in his BR Twiki robo-suit & the voice provided by someone who can imitate Mel Blanc's Twiki voice perfectly.

"Bee-bee-bee-bee beh-beh-beh beebebeeebe! Phlox, will you look out Beebeebee-beebeebeebee-Hoshi, out o'm'way!"

 

[Praetor]

Thanks for your comments Praetor. I understand where you're coming from. It always struck me as interesting that ENT seemed to so at odds with a lot of the programming on UPN in terms of diversity, or at least having non-white American characters in the central roles, or getting the most development.

Perhaps having a Latino captain for example, might've helped ENT gain more notice in the media, giving B & B a chance to trumpet how progressive and relevant Trek still was-which is a matter for another debate-well, at least they could make the argument on the surface. Plus, it might have attracted a wider audience. Now to keep that audience, they needed better stories and better written characters across the board.

Agreed wholeheartedly there, my friend.

I'm not a fan of tokenism, and Trek has practiced it quite a bit IMO. Starting with Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov. As much as I like those characters and those actors, and understand the importance of what esp. Nichelle Nichols and George Takei did on a historical level, they were sidenote characters, with little inner lives. They eventually at least gave Sulu a captaincy and a daughter out of the blue.

Now I can understand why Sulu and Uhura got the token treatment, but it was inexcusable to do the same thing to Hoshi and Travis. I never bought the excuse that Anthony Montgomery wasn't a strong enough actor so that's why he didn't get a lot of lines. If he was strong enough to be cast in the role, then he was good enough to be a significant part of the show. Hoshi's development was also haphazardly done. So, as much as I would've liked some non-conventional casting where the captain and first officer, at least, were concerned, I wouldn't want them getting the Hoshi-Travis treatment.

Exactly right. In the sixties, it was a two-fold situation - most hour-long dramas only had two or three stars (more often, only one) and so anyone else essentially became a background character and, if they happen to be of a non-white race, arguably token. If they weren't going to do more with Hoshi and Mayweather as regulars, they should have realized it was going to look like tokenism. For that matter, why did an ostensibly Japanese woman seem so homogenously American? Similar my conclusions regarding the perceived 'too advanced' appearance of the ship not mattering in the grand scheme because of the way its abilities were depicted, it didn't matter who they cast, really, because they weren't going to treat them 'properly.'

But even before 9/11, they could've perhaps had an Arab character and a Jewish character who were friends, using the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for inspiration. Is it hitting you over the head with a hammer? Perhaps, but Trek hasn't always been known for subtlety, ex. "Let that Be Your Last Battlefield."

An excellent, excellent idea. There was a pretty good 'Star Trek: Starfleet Academy' comic series published briefly in the late nineties that featured a half-Palestinian, half-Israeli character, which I thought was brilliant. In one of her introductory scenes, she was participating in a holodeck recreation of the struggles between her two ancestor peoples to try to understand them, because apparently society had evolved to the point where she couldn't. How's that for optimism?

Realism should've come into the picture. George Wendt should've played Archer. The "real" Archer would probably be someone like Wendt.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but an 'everyman' like Wendt would actually have been an interesting choice. Certainly Starfleet places certain physical requirements on its officers, but then again, maybe not?

 

[gblews]

The fact that Archer is a "flawed" character, or a character with flaws is not the reason Archer consistently scores so low in the best captain polls.

All of the Trek captains had flaws. We all saw Kirk show fits of ego and sexual promiscuity, sometimes to the ship and his crew's detriment. Lord knows Sisko stepped over the moral line a few times and even Picard could be taken to task if for no other reason than his slavish (sometimes irrationally so) devotion to the Prime Directive.

Archer's problem and the reason he sometimes scores below even the animated captains, was that when Archer was written as a bumbling doofus, Scott Bakula was never able to give us anymore of the character than what was written in the script that is, Archer as a bumbling doofus. Scott was a competent enough actor for the most part to to give us the character written in the script, but when the negative impact of Archer's prejudice or stupidity might have been offset by sheer charisma or charm, or a showing of inner dignity and strength, Scott never delivered. So what we were left with was the Archer that was written in the script -- a buffoon -- a jerk.

I disagree with those who say the writers knew who Trip was early on. In the initial episodes Trip was as Jolene said, a catfish eating Honky Tonk guy. The character goes through a complete metamorphosis starting in season 3 and finishing in 4. Yet through all this bad and erratic writing, "Trip" remained a very popular AND respected character no doubt helped by the actor's ability to infuse the character with charisma, charm, and an underlying sense of natural smarts. Without this, "Trip" is simply. 'that hick of an engineer'.

Scott simply was not able to make Archer more than what was written. I think he understood that Archer wasn't who he wanted him to be on screen, but instead of creating an on screen Archer we could all respect if not outright love, regardless of the writers, Scott goes to the writers and asks them to fix Archer. They did in season 3, but in what I believe is Manny's only failure in season 4, often take Archer back into areas which required more diverse acting than Scot Bakula could deliver.

Sad, but Archer, flaws and all, could have been one of the most beloved captain characters had he been written more like Scott. Unfortunately, in an early sign that they were going to come out of the shute coasting, the Beebs choose Scott and his presumed built in audience, instead of choosing the best actor for the character they had written.

 

[The_Beef]

They set him up as very fallible as kind of the arch example of humanity in their whole humans vs. Vulcans thing. I guess they thought that they would show humanity as having a lot of faults but being able to admit them and work through them, while in contrast Vulcans were of course as fallible as anybody else but so self-assured that they could never admit it. Now, all good characters need faults, but they have to have some consistency in their characters. Archer just came off as having a moral compass that was spinning out of control and that's a bad thing when you're still dedicated to portraying your lead as the good guy. I guess what I'm saying is that they took a concept that wasn't that bad (portraying a very human character with real character faults and virtues) and just executed it very, very poorly.

 

[miraclefan]

People like certain people for no real reason. Some liked ''Janeway'' others liked ''KIRK'' I liked ''ARCHER'' (really becuase I liked Bakula) but I'm in the minority. Now was the charactor poorley writen? for the most part yes! Things ''may'' have changed if there were a 5th season, but we will never know!

 

[SFRabid]

I just finished watching season 3 again. The more I watch the more I like Archer. This is when he really started to shine. He seemed to get into the part more that season and the writing was better, and more controversial for his character. If it was just the last two years I could consider him my favorite captain.

 

[rramarr]

Maybe it was not fair to have Kirk in the survey - he overshadows everyone as expected.

Archer vs. Jayneway

I actually prefer Janeway, but first as to Archer. As early as the first season he tried to come off as a tough guy and that was not working for him. Did they expect us to believe in "United" that Archer would defeat Shran in Ushaan, a deadly competition that Shran was skilled in fighting? Here's Archer who has never seen or competed in Ushaan before and he wins against one of the best. Maybe if he was Worf or some security officer like Malcolm Reed, where its his specialty to fight and know other cultural defense tactics I would have accepted it, but Archer read the rules the same day and won.

He also came off as too attached to his dog Porthos to the point he would have taken a starship to war against the Kreetassans in "A Night in Sick Bay." Why did he take a dog on a first contact mission with the Kreetassans anyway?

Jane way reminds me of that real woman I don't want to have for a boss, but shows me her maternal nurturing side. We never seen Archer be fatherly or nurturing accept maybe to Mayweather when his dad died in the "Fortunate Son." As Robinson told him on "First Flight," "...a good captain is also about relationships." We see Jayneway trying to form unique and individual relationships with all of her crew.

 

[Lady Conqueror]

We never seen Archer be fatherly or nurturing accept maybe to Mayweather when his dad died in the "Fortunate Son." As Robinson told him on "First Flight," "...a good captain is also about relationships." We see Jayneway trying to form unique and individual relationships with all of her crew.

I'd disagree with that quite strongly. He was very nuturing with Trip (Desert Crossing springs to mind first, but they had a very strong relationship as friends, especially in the first two seasons), Hoshi (Fight or Flight), Travis (Horizon) and T'Pol (Fallen Hero, Shadows of P'Jem, Stigma, Impulse etc and generally forming a close friendship with her). He tried to get to know Malcolm - trying to get a special meal organised for his birthday in Silent Enemy & that disastarous breakfast in Minefield (and he had another breakfast lined up with Travis mentioned in Dead Stop).

Of course during Season 3 he went all Lone Wolf and shut himself off from everybody and they never really got him back on track after that in Season 4 unfortunately, but it was there in the character early on IMO and one of the things I personally really liked about him.

 

[JiNX-01]

I'd disagree with that quite strongly. He was very nuturing with Trip (Desert Crossing springs to mind first, but they had a very strong relationship as friends, especially in the first two seasons), Hoshi (Fight or Flight), Travis (Horizon) and T'Pol (Fallen Hero, Shadows of P'Jem, Stigma, Impulse etc and generally forming a close friendship with her). He tried to get to know Malcolm - trying to get a special meal organised for his birthday in Silent Enemy & that disastarous breakfast in Minefield (and he had another breakfast lined up with Travis mentioned in Dead Stop).

Totally agree. He also gently persuades poor shell-shocked Hoshi to help him destroy the weapon in Zero Hour ... she steps up to the job because she's become a stronger person herself throughout S3, a nice development for her character.

Of course during Season 3 he went all Lone Wolf and shut himself off from everybody and they never really got him back on track after that in Season 4 unfortunately, but it was there in the character early on IMO and one of the things I personally really liked about him.

I think it was entirely realistic to keep Archer isolated in season 4.
Some people think he was "healed" by getting laid with Erika, but I think he only partly recovered from the damage to his soul because of what he had to do, what he had to ask his crew to do in the Expanse.

 

[Cyke101]

Aside from his seriously outdated condescending attitude (towards species, races, and cultures that were clearly more advanced than us), my one big gripe is just how often Archer seemed to get kidnapped. I could swear that sometimes he went out of his way to get bound, hoping to get gagged in the process.

This could be personal bias clouding my memories, but I don't remember the peacenik diplomat Picard getting kidnapped so often, and he had the most famous example of all captains.

 

[frenchman]

I'd disagree with that quite strongly. He was very nuturing with Trip (Desert Crossing springs to mind first, but they had a very strong relationship as friends, especially in the first two seasons), Hoshi (Fight or Flight), Travis (Horizon) and T'Pol (Fallen Hero, Shadows of P'Jem, Stigma, Impulse etc and generally forming a close friendship with her). He tried to get to know Malcolm - trying to get a special meal organised for his birthday in Silent Enemy & that disastarous breakfast in Minefield (and he had another breakfast lined up with Travis mentioned in Dead Stop).

Totally agree. He also gently persuades poor shell-shocked Hoshi to help him destroy the weapon in Zero Hour ... she steps up to the job because she's become a stronger person herself throughout S3, a nice development for her character.

Of course during Season 3 he went all Lone Wolf and shut himself off from everybody and they never really got him back on track after that in Season 4 unfortunately, but it was there in the character early on IMO and one of the things I personally really liked about him.

I think it was entirely realistic to keep Archer isolated in season 4.
Some people think he was "healed" by getting laid with Erika, but I think he only partly recovered from the damage to his soul because of what he had to do, what he had to ask his crew to do in the Expanse.

i totally agree with you jinx.
plus, i will say that i like to see the dark side about archer. and Bakula did it well. concerning his behavior after the season 3, i like thinking he made decisions in the expanse to avoid the crew lost themselves.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I just finished watching season 3 again. The more I watch the more I like Archer. This is when he really started to shine. He seemed to get into the part more that season and the writing was better, and more controversial for his character. If it was just the last two years I could consider him my favorite captain.

True. It's like the writers made up their minds about Archer's personality and character two years too late. But at least they did, eventually.