Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,143
For the last week or so I've been rewatching Star Trek: Enterprise on Netflix. After about 10 episodes I formulated an analysis of Captain Archer which hasn't undergone any major changes, and I'm through almost all of Season 3. I thought I would share it for discussion.

Captain Archer is a petulant crybaby with no command abilities and absolutely no diplomatic abilities.

Half of the episodes involve him getting himself into some kind of trouble - usually captured by the enemy, or incapacitated in some manner - that his crew has to get him out of. If it weren't for his crew, he would be dead about 50 times over.

I like Enterprise, but Archer is only minutely better than Janeway, who I find completely insufferable along with practically all of her crew.

They should have started the series with the mirror universe episode, and run from there, leaving the Archer character as a tragic memory.

If there is something like Starfleet in Earth's future, God save my descendants from the likes of a Captain Archer.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,688
# 2
09-01-2012, 07:46 PM
They put Howdy Doody in the center seat, one of the many mistakes made in Enterprise. Scott Bakula is suitable as a comic relief character, but captain of a starship? Please... The only thing more pathetic would be giving Reginald Barcley command of a starship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 237
# 3
09-01-2012, 08:07 PM
Aside from this being in the wrong section, I like Scott Bakula in it and thought he did a great job. A starship captain isn't about being the best pilot, but the best person.
Cloaking generators break down at first sign of language.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,143
# 4
09-02-2012, 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by praghas View Post
Aside from this being in the wrong section, I like Scott Bakula in it and thought he did a great job. A starship captain isn't about being the best pilot, but the best person.
You should watch a few episodes close together. Archer's only command style is petulant anger. In one episode the crew has to mutiny because he isn't acting himself. He is angry at everyone and starts relieving them of their duties. I couldn't tell how they knew he wasn't acting himself.

I don't know if it was Bakula's acting or how he was directed, but Admiral Forrest should have spanked his whiny butt.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman

Last edited by crusty8mac; 09-02-2012 at 02:46 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 622
# 5
09-29-2012, 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by praghas View Post
Aside from this being in the wrong section, I like Scott Bakula in it and thought he did a great job. A starship captain isn't about being the best pilot, but the best person.
I 100% agree, sure he was not the perfect captain, but no one is and he did the best job possible under alot of circumstances. The actor Scott Bakula did an excellent job. I wish they went on for another season or did what the stargate franchise did and do dvd tv movies.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 387
# 6
09-01-2012, 08:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
They put Howdy Doody in the center seat, one of the many mistakes made in Enterprise. Scott Bakula is suitable as a comic relief character, but captain of a starship? Please... The only thing more pathetic would be giving Reginald Barcley command of a starship.
actually, barcly as a captain would be quite funny
rrred aaaalert! bbbatle ssstations!
neelix as a captain would be even worse
When in doubt, (hehe) c4!
This sig dedicated to the many random objects the Mythbusters crew has blow to smitherines
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,231
# 7
09-01-2012, 08:57 PM
Agreed with the OP. I like Bakula in other shows (Quantum Leap), but as a Starfleet Captain, he did a poor job, and perhaps the writers have to share some of the blame.
Federation Bushrangers
Federation & Imperial Bushrangers
Looking for an Australian/New Zealand fleet?
Sign up here:
www.bushrangers.net
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,018
# 8
09-01-2012, 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkstocbr View Post
Agreed with the OP. I like Bakula in other shows (Quantum Leap), but as a Starfleet Captain, he did a poor job, and perhaps the writers have to share some of the blame.
I think he was an ideal cast but the writing was weak.

He should have been more daring and funny, less handwringing and less based on certain prominent political figures.

I think one thing that Quantum Leap made great use of was playing him as a bookish but physical guy, in touch with his feminine side, and a somewhat conflicted but capable approach to romance. That all gelled on QL.

On Enterprise, he seemed constipated and more than a little modeled on U.S. presidents.

Just thinking how I'd have approached creating Archer, knowing Bakula's strengths...

I'd have made him considerably more daring. Not in a "I'm going to challenge you and prove humanity's worth" kind of way. That made him seem ignorant. Instead, I'd have looked at something like making him a human who'd spent his years since high school with Andorians. Oddly pluralistic. Aggressive. The ideal human to reach the stars. A reverse Spock instead of a proto-Kirk. He knows the galaxy better than his crew. Has traveled the circuit of worlds that Vulcan is linked with and knows a thing or two. But he doesn't know it as a military commander because he's the first. He knows it more as a human expat who has backpacked across a dozen worlds. I'd have made him a Nerdy Ernest Hemmingway or even F. Scott Fitzgerald who must prove he's suitable for military command. College educated playboy who suddenly has to consider strategy and defense. Maybe a bit of a JFK. If he's going to act like a politician, might as well give him the full set.

The second thing I'd have done and this is radical for Trek... is to give him a wife and somehow not kill her off. And she's a civilian. And it rankles people that they've got a crew of 83 and a civilian onboard. It rankles people that he takes advice from her. And she's hot.

This gets around the poor attempts at chemistry between Bakula and the females they tried to play him opposite. Shatner could be a horndog. So could Picard.

Bakula can have appeal as a romantic lead but his type is definitely the one woman man... and it's SUCH a running theme on later shows that a captain can't have serious relationships that if you want a prequel that establishes the rules, you might as well break the big one and have a married captain. And show the problems it creates by having it as this awkward situation that you're stuck with.

And she's smart and sexy but she gets in the way. Maybe have her as the ship psychologist and in contrast to Troi, who we see as a counselor, she's more... theoretical. A Freudian. And a touch manipulative. A civilian psychotherapist. Has issues with Phlox, maybe big on prescribing psychiatric drugs which Phlox objects to filling orders for.

Played by Olivia Williams. So she's stern, sophisticated, British, doesn't take kindly to this military dynamic Archer has himself embroiled in. Looks forward to getting planetside. Gotta have sparks with Archer so people see the appeal but gotta have sparks with the crew so that people see that, with small crews anyway, it's better for the Captain to be married to his ship. In the end, she and Archer work things out but it's rocky.

And... with that... I've just rewired the whole show's dynamic.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,241
# 9
09-02-2012, 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkstocbr View Post
Agreed with the OP. I like Bakula in other shows (Quantum Leap), but as a Starfleet Captain, he did a poor job, and perhaps the writers have to share some of the blame.
Thats just it. He played Archer as if he still was the guy from quantum leap. Same exact personality and boy scout mentality.


Personally I would've chose Michael Ironside as Archer.

He's got the attitude, the acting skills and would've been great for the role.
http://media.tumblr.com/160cacdb395f8340dac90864182ebe16/tumblr_inline_mx9yxhItkb1qg9pkt.jpg
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 10
09-02-2012, 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ariseabove View Post
Your forgetting about the character Whoopie Goldberg (don't know don't care if thats the correct spelling for he name) played in the next gen, Her entire race was wiped out by the Borg with a history and all.
Since you started your post by being utterly disrespectful and uncaring, I suppose i'll have to follow in kind. The correct spelling FYI, is "Whoopi Goldberg", Mr Risabove. Don't suppose you'd like it if people purposely called you by the wrong name? I'm sure Mr Burton wasn't too thrilled to be called "Laverne" on the ST: Nemesis set, by it's director.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ariseabove View Post
The problem I have with a Borg episode in Archers time is the tech level between then and when Q re-introduced the Federation to the Borg, they would have had borg tech to fight them with. You can't tell me Starfleet would have just left the borg stuff and never poked at it as that just does not fit into Starfleets profile.
You fail to take into account, the impact of having Borg in the 22nd Century (caused by Picard leaving wreckage/bodies on Earth in 2063). In the original timeline, the Borg weren't even present in the 22nd Century (as far as we know). There would be no tech to study, no tech to prepare for, and no fore-knowledge of the Borg, other than "rumor and speculations".

During TNG, Season 1's "The Neutral Zone" and Season 3's "Best of Both Worlds" are very much part of the same storyline. The Enterprise is sent to investigate a planet (in the latter episode), and it's confirmed that the destruction is the "same as what was seen in The Neutral Zone". The Borg were present near Federation space as early as the end of Season 1. Half a season later, in "Q Who?", the character of Q sends the Enterprise flying 8500 lightyears, directly into the path of a Borg Cube. It's assumed later on that the Cube in Best of Both Worlds, is the same cube as in Q Who?. One could always speculate, why were the Borg already on a direct path towards the Alpha Quadrant, when Q sent the Enterprise flying? Did Q possibly have fore-knowledge of what Humanity should expect to face? Did Q try to warn Picard and the rest of humanity? We know from Q's own statements, that the "Continuum" fears what Humanity might one day become. A race possibly more powerful than the Continuum itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ariseabove View Post
You can say their separate realities to justify the mess but its not the case, the last Star Trek movie is supposed to be about to how Kirk became Captain of the Enterprise not some alternate reality and it can't be an alternate reality anyway cause you have the Spok we know as well as the new one so it has directly got to do with temporal time travel.
Stated and quoted in the movie as being an "Alternate Reality" caused by Nero's influence on the timeline and the destruction of the USS Kelvin. I understand you hated the movie, but atleast try and back up your claims with same actual FACTS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ariseabove View Post
If you have ever seen the original pilot episode of the original Star Trek with Captain Pike you would see how hypercritical the whole Star Trek story line has become and there is another Episode with Kirk returning Pike to the planet it all started with but the new movie completely wrecked that whole story.
This goes back to my previous paragraph. The 2009 movie takes place in an "Alternate Reality", and thus anything that happens in that timeline, has absolutely NO BEARING on the events of the "Prime Universe" that is TOS and beyond.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:09 PM.