Why no love for Archer?
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
Meh, PTrope, if your critiera is that all characters are as you request, not only would the writing be uninteresting, but none of the characters would be qualified for their jobs. There is dramatic license and the "willing suspension of disbelief." These are necessary in order to watch any program.
Man, if I had any idea what kind of Archer 'bash-o-rama' this thread would turn into, I'm not sure I'd open it.
Nepotism, poor manners, impatience, zero diplomatic skills, arrogance... People have been pointing out all these traits, and I honestly can't argue with them, these traits are all here, but I still prefer Archer over Janeway, or at least I think I do...
She does seem like a more pleasant person to be around, patient, polite, authoritative, trustworthy... But then again, Archer never made a pact with the Borg and never intentionally changed the historically correct timeline (BTW, is it just me, or is "Timeship Relativity" turning up only when it suits Braga?).
Nepotism, poor manners, impatience, zero diplomatic skills, arrogance... People have been pointing out all these traits, and I honestly can't argue with them, these traits are all here, but I still prefer Archer over Janeway, or at least I think I do...
She does seem like a more pleasant person to be around, patient, polite, authoritative, trustworthy... But then again, Archer never made a pact with the Borg and never intentionally changed the historically correct timeline (BTW, is it just me, or is "Timeship Relativity" turning up only when it suits Braga?).
I don't actually disagree with this. I just thought that they should have shown him at least attempting to reconnect a little more than they did and try and find his way back (not that he really could - or should - return to his season 1/2 character). But the show focused a lot more on plot than character in season 4 - which i personally found unfortunate, though most people seemed to prefer it.
A big element of 'willing suspension of disbelief' is that the characters and their environment, or the characters and the plot, mesh in such a way that we can accept that they should mesh. I'm not sure what you mean about "all characters are as you request"; I don't recall 'requesting' characters to be a certain way. In the set-up of ENT, though, a big deal is made about how this ship and crew are a unique and vital probe out into the expanses of space that Earth has not yet successfully reached and returned from. And as captain, as well as Earth's first official diplomat into those areas, there are certain requirements and qualifications that any rational audience would expect, regardless of the circumstances of his command. Chief amongst them is that he is a leader, that he has not only knowledge and experience but also wisdom, if he is to be successful, and if he doesn't have those things, he can still be a great character if there is a plausible reason for his deficiencies, along with consequences. Archer was unqualified, clearly, and yet his crew followed him into any stupid course he steered, not only unafraid or unquestioning, but actually mouthing his supposed résumé, when his accomplishments should have been borne out by his actions. They weren't; his entire qualification was by writer fiat, and nothing else. Heck, they couldn't even get the nepotism right, because aside from our knowing that his father was responsible somehow for the engineering breakthroughs that made their warp speeds possible, we also never got any indication that his father had either the power or the obligations owed him that would allow Archer to skip over the class and take the center seat. As mentioned in a previous post, even when they delved into it in "First Flight," the most they qualified Archer for was as a pilot, not as a captain.
Dramatic license is not "I'm the writer and I can do anything with the story or characters, without any substance to back it up"; you have to earn dramatic license just as surely as you have to earn a driver's license - you've got to show, through your efforts in storytelling and/or character-building, that your use of dramatic license justifies ignoring or twisting the rules. If you make the captain incompetent, against any rational expectation, then his incompetence has to mean something other than simply an effort to show him as 'flawed'; we either need to see that his incompetence is itself a key factor in his growth - which we didn't - or it is a key factor in his downfall - which, again, we didn't. All we got was a Greek chorus singing his praises as he made bad decision after bad decision, people congratulating him on his accomplishments who apparently never read a single report of his missions (unless Archer was lying in all of his mission reports and pressuring his crew to keep them from spilling the beans - which in itself would have been an interesting dramatic twist).
As I said, Archer's general personality was perfect for an ensign - someone who was absolutely certain of his own knowledge and opinions to the point of arrogance, whose limited exposure to aliens made him both prejudiced and fearful of them, and someone whose commission was influenced or outright bought by his father (in many ways, that sounds like what Abrams is doing with Kirk!). Throw him in at the bottom, force him to learn - sometimes painfully - that arrogance is no substitute for experience or wisdom. Use him as the audience's surrogate, an 'everyman' to whom we can relate and not just use as fantasy fulfillment, as Archer was ("Lookie! Archer's just like meeeeeee - and he's the Captain! Kewl!!"), and you've got a reasonably sound basis for his character. And as time goes on, he can grow, he can be promoted, and when the time is right - probably by a tragic accident (again, that sounds a lot like Abrams' course for Kirk ...), he becomes captain and realizes - again, probably painfully - that his actions and attitudes have consequences that he can't escape or ignore. His flaws may still exist, but they are understood by him and he either succeeds or fails by how he balances his flaws with his responsibilities.
I don't know how you could say with a straight face that that approach would be "uninteresting."
By the 3rd or 4th season, Archer was rockin'.
Well, in fairness, I'm under the impression that Scott was told to keep moving (pacing) by TIIC... beats me what the effect was supposed to be.
Sure, and characters all have a fatal flaw in which they need to overcome to become victorious. It's not "I'm the writer and what I say goes," but your criteria are ... well ... I think they would make an incredibly uninteresting story. From your earlier description everyone would be nearly perfect.
Now, on the criteria of meshing with their environment, I think that's purely subjective. I think the characters for the most part meshed. My critiques of the writing is more: 1) people didn't pay attention to established canon (Bormanis should've been fired) 2) the obstacles they threw in front of the characters weren't accomplished by the characters 3) some of the characters (because they had been poorly thought out) were inconsistent and 4) gimmicks were used rather than character development for stories (romance instead of caring, etc.). I think these are the things that led to the ultimate demise of the show, not flawed characters were introduced.
Yeah, I guess you're right. I don't think Bakula is that great of an actor, to tell you the truth. His acting on "In A Mirror, Darkly," is just godawful, in my opinion.
I actually think Bakula is a good actor. His work in Quantum Leap (a show I watched after Enterprise) and a variety of other shows has been good, bordering on stellar. Like everyone, including even those actors with a "sir" in front of their names, he made some bad choices in both films and in acting. Hey, no one's perfect.
His choice to move around the bridge was one I appreciated. My comment was more -- it was *his* choice.
His choice to move around the bridge was one I appreciated. My comment was more -- it was *his* choice.
I personally liked Archer and for the most part the way Bakula played him. While he may not have been my favorite character in Enterprise I think he did a good job of being Earth's first warp 5 capable Starship Captain and a founding father of the UFP. I think Picard was the best of all the captains.
Why does the Trekkie population dislike him? The answer is simple: In Star Trek canon, Archer is now a more important figure than Kirk, from an historical perspective. Just compare their histories:
Archer
Kirk
If you were a TOS die hard, you'd be upset too. When B&B created Archer with this much importance to Trek Lore (far more than the beloved Kirk) of course the Trek old timers are going to bust a blood vessel.
(BTW: I consider my self an Trek old timer as I watched TOS when it originally aired, even though I was just a little kid.)
Last edited:
Very true. Too many fans can't get over these pre-conceived visions of how things should be. Ultimately, this played a big part in killing the franchise, at least for television.
That's really the crux of it, I think.
There are no doubt certain people who were offended by the idea that someone be introduced in the past to 'steal Kirk's importance' pre-TOS but I am not one of them. I was very intrigued by the premise of a prequel series, and very hopeful for its results.
I think ultimately the reason the Archer character is not-so beloved as others is that he was a letdown. We were tantalized with the intriguing idea of an interesting character who would be 'Kirk's childhood hero' yet the actual character as finally presented ranged from bland and rather inept to moody and blindly headstrong, and ultimately did not feel as strong as Kirk or any of the other captains that followed him, let alone being someone that Kirk would have idolized. It wasn't even that the approach to the character was wrong, as a flawed character can be interesting - it was that the character was inconsistent. He got better as the show went on, IMO, but in seasons one and two the damage was largely done.
As someone who's boyhood hero was Kirk, I could tell you that I had no trouble accepting Archer for the role he had in Trek lore. Of course that was me after a 17 year absence from Star Trek (I stopped watching after two seasons of TNG). I really thought Archer was OK, I liked him.
Actually, I thought it was refreshing to have a captain who was not a skirt chaser. I thought the relationship with Hernandez had real potential if they had more seasons. In my opinion, it worked.
As far as his "wet dream about his XO" goes; well you know my opinion about that!
(Don't we have a puke smile face?)
You left out my second paragraph where I explained why it didn't work for me...
But I can appreciate that everyone feels differently about it, and that's fine.
(For the record, my boyhood hero was Kirk, too. Movies Kirk, though, as emotionally screwed up as he was. Picard ran a close second.)
I'm a TOS fan from way, way back, but I don't have a problem with Archer.
No doubt about it: Movie Kirk was far, far better than TV Kirk. Almost like Shatner was a different actor.
