I'm way late and not going to address what's already been discussed, but I'll say this about Archer. A few years back, I finally went back to VOY and then ENT, having previously seen only a fraction of each. What stood out to me most about Archer that I appreciated was how his default greeting to most people he encountered was to ask if there was anything the Enterprise could do for them.
Here he is, further from Earth than any human has ever been--effectively all out there alone without any reasonable expectation of back-up. No Starfeet, or even Starfleet-friendly outpost to pop in on if needed. He could have been defensive and protective of Enterprise's resources, and it would have been perfectly reasonable. Instead, he offered generosity, under the presumption that it would generate goodwill and that in the end, whatever needs Enterprise had would be met in kind if not by this people, then by the next. And he made those assumptions because of a fundamental belief in the goodness of the universe.
I can't emphasize enough, for those who may not recall, how strikingly that attitude contrasted with the post-9/11 zeitgeist of the show's production. Season 3 Archer is a reflection of that zeitgeist, and it's unsettling because it's so antithetical to the innocence that he started with. And that's also why it's so gratifying to see him rebuild that throughout Season 4.
He built up his crew, offering encouragement in ways that none of the other captains were comfotable doing. When he said, "I know you can do this", it didn't feel like Something a Captain Says to Talk Someone Into Doing Something They Don't Think They Can Do, but a sincere expression of someone who knew the person he was addressing well enough to see their potential and strengths.
So anyway, that's what I appreciate about the guy.
Oh! And he had Porthos. I can't dislike a guy with a beagle unless he's mean to said beagle, which was clearly not the case.
U.S. children going to grade school are trained mathematicians. That does not mean they are mathematicians or that they are not, to determine whether a specific child is one, I need to know what the training is.
The Enterprise writers thought the training was important enough to reference. Therefore, in canon, it was enough training to be significant.
But this is off topic we know from Enterprise that Archer is the Federation's finest above all. The federation does not exist without him. True this is the Federarion and not Starfleet. But, it was also said that this was because of his diplomatic skill. Him bringing together different alien races, who were antagonistic to each other, on the brink of war, or who would have gone to war except for his involvement.
Also Starfleet did not send Archer to be diplomatic with the Xindi's they sent him to destroy the weapon at whatever cost. So maybe, Archer is not Starflleet's finest because he ends up bringing peace. Peace among other alien races may not be Starfeet's agenda. Of course, be careful, Archer was doing as Starfleet commanded when he went in to attempt to destroy the weapon. Daniel's is a representative of the Federation, he is the one who urges him to seek a diplomatic solution or at least have someone else man the attempt to destroy the weapon.
Edit: I am not trying to defend the writing on Enterprise. Even episodes I did like the writing either that episode was still interesting to watch or lead to good episodes. The first two examples you picked the night in sickbay and the one on the comet are fairly poor episodes. They had different points they were making but they are not easy at all to watch the way they are written.
The one on the comet has Archer helping Tucker (the poop question). Tucker helping T'Pol (The arranged marriage) And, T'Pol getting Archer to ask for help from Vulcan ship. ( like really, had no other choice, he was going to have to do it anyhow)
It was difficult to get through your comment with so much off-topic stuff! Trying to summarize your points, going through all of the "facts" you spent hours collating, it appears that your positive reasons for Archer being one of Starfleet's finest are:
1) "The federation does not exist without him. True this is the Federarion and not Starfleet. But, it was also said that this was because of his diplomatic skill." [offscreen]
2) "The one on the comet has Archer helping Tucker (the poop question)."
3) "T'Pol getting Archer to ask for help from Vulcan ship. ( like really, had no other choice, he was going to have to do it anyhow)"
We can cut "3", as it was T'Pol who saved the day. Of course Archer had another option. He'd already chosen another option. He was willing to let his crew die rather than ask for help. According to Dirk Gunderson, ByloBand and Banjo1012, this was because he was the first Starfleet captain exploring space. Apparently, it takes years of previous captains writing rules in order to know how to ask for help in order to save lives.
"2"... OK, fine. Archer helped Tucker with the "poop question". I'm absolutely willing to accept that (mostly because I don't remember the details). It must have been a very important "poop question" to make Archer one of Starfleet's finest, but I'll take your word for it. (By the way, if you're going to hand-wave anything bad about Archer because it was in a "poor episode", that leaves us with precious little material to work with for either side.)
"1" - well, here's the thing. And it's a thing that comes up a lot with Archer. Are you familiar with the "Informed Ability" trope? Archer is practically the poster child for this trope. You can see others in this thread have already commented on how amazing Archer was, because he started the entire Federation. That, and his being the first Starfleet captain out there, seem to be his two consistent get-out-of-jail-free cards used to hand-wave every time he was holding the idiot ball. Even common-sense stuff, like his frequent surprise and indignation at alien cultures not having exactly the same standards as Americans, apparently requires generations of previous captains and it's all fine because he later starts the Federation anyway.
It could be as Kaitee said. Maybe Archer would have developed into a great diplomat and non-tool through seasons five, six and seven. But we really don't have enough context on the founding of the Federation at this point - all we have is Riker's hologram. Based on what we've seen of Archer, if we'd had an episode around the Federation founding, it could well have included a Tellarite eating Porthos on the morning of the founding, and Archer then threatening to cancel the entire Federation in a childish tantrum until T'Pol coerces him into going and making his speech. Just like in the episodes we did see, things could well have turned out for the best despite Archer, and not because of Archer.
Still, if you happen to have any onscreen "facts" about how Archer was one of Starfleet's finest, I'm all ears - it's been a while since I've seen the show, and I'm open to the possibility that I've had the wrong impression all these years. Or was the "poop question" it? Despite a lot of teasing, that's the closest anyone's come to sharing a positive specific thing Archer did onscreen in this thread!
Let's start off with Tucker commenting about Archer being a "Trained diplomat"
This is Archer and Trip. This statement carries no wait. These guys are friends.
But, what is the point. Are you saying you have to be a diplomat to be Starfleets Finest. Then clearly we know that Archer is a diplomat. A proven diplomat. It is his diplomacy that leads to the formation of the Federation. Which clearly it is shown, would not exist without him.
the comet one. He was not willing to let his crew die. He was never allowed to make his choice. T'Pol comes in with her speech. There is no proof that he would not have come to this decision without T'Pol's statement. The three incidents I point out are more like the writer is trying to show children growing up. Seems to go along with the snowman being built on the comet by Reed and Mayweather.
Who brought Vulcan's the true teachings of Surak. At the same time put's an end to the corrupt leader of the Vulcan High Command.The Forge, The Awakening, Kir'Shara three part episode.
Who kept the Romulan's from causing havoc, distrust and war. In same episode, unites the Talerites and the Andorians.Babel One,United,The Aenar three parts
Who exposes the lies of the Vulcans of not using their temple to hide a spying facility to spy on Andorians in violation of their treaty. The Andorian Incident
Who creates an ally with the Xindi's who were bent on Earth's destruction.Countdown
Who was called on to help to create a new treaty between the Andorians and Vulcans.Cease Fire
The episode Demons does talk about the beginnings of the Federation definite reference by T'Pol of Archer's contribution.
Are you saying you have to be a diplomat to be Starfleets Finest.
No, I have never said that. I have pointed out his lack of diplomacy in several episodes. Then pointed out that a lack of training is not an excuse (in direct response to someone saying his lack of training is a good excuse).
It is his diplomacy that leads to the formation of the Federation. Which clearly it is shown, would not exist without him.
This is not "clearly" shown. It's never shown. It's attributed to him, but we never saw him doing anything great or special. Tucker could have probably achieved exactly the same results. Maybe even Mayweather. (Not Malcolm, obviously.) Again, onscreen stuff, please.
the comet one. He was not willing to let his crew die. He was never allowed to make his choice. T'Pol comes in with her speech. There is no proof that he would not have come to this decision without T'Pol's statement.
Ermmm... OK. We call that the "negative proof fallacy".
Who brought Vulcan's the true teachings of Surak. At the same time put's an end to the corrupt leader of the Vulcan High Command.The Forge, The Awakening, Kir'Shara three part episode.
Who kept the Romulan's from causing havoc, distrust and war. In same episode, unites the Talerites and the Andorians.Babel One,United,The Aenar three parts
Who exposes the lies of the Vulcans of not using their temple to hide a spying facility to spy on Andorians in violation of their treaty. The Andorian Incident
Who creates an ally with the Xindi's who were bent on Earth's destruction.Countdown
Who was called on to help to create a new treaty between the Andorians and Vulcans.Cease Fire
The episode Demons does talk about the beginnings of the Federation definite reference by T'Pol of Archer's contribution.
Perhaps I'd have to rewatch those episodes to be sure, because again, unlike my case studies, you haven't said what Archer specifically did that wouldn't have simply happened with any other person in that position. My knee-jerk reaction is that Archer didn't do anything special in any of those cases (and, indeed, gave the Andorians the evidence simply because Archer's anti-Vulcan). You've skipped his Valakian genocide, although Banjo1012 has brought it up (seemingly as a positive, oddly enough).
Really, don't worry about it if you can't find anything. It's OK to like a captain just because you like a captain. I've shared my opinion of why Archer might* not be considered Starfleet's finest, and been fortunate enough to be able to back it up with clear examples. That doesn't invalidate your opinion in any way.
*It's all moot as he was in the Starfleet's Finest pack before, anyway. He is one of Starfleet's finest! He was simply replaced by Georgiou last year, understandably - she's more relevant today, and the other captains are more popular. And from a sheer gameplay perspective, the other captains have better numbers than COP Archer, and having 7+ in a pack would be an unwelcome change as it dilutes the chance of getting the character you want!
You've skipped his Valakian genocide, although Banjo1012 has brought it up (seemingly as a positive, oddly enough).
This statement is the cherry on top of your fundamental misunderstanding of Archer, and apparently the Prime Directive as well. You know...one of the most important guiding principles across multiple Trek series. That entire episode was a harsh lesson for Archer personally as well as all of humanity, and likely was the precipitating event for the Prime Directive to be enacted in the first place. Not only was it a watershed moment for Starfleet, it helped give Archer some perspective on how Vulcans saw humanity since first contact was made.
Also, help me remember: how many schools were named after Zefram Cochrane and Jonathan Archer? Seems to me that an honor like that isn’t reserved for abject failures, right?
You've skipped his Valakian genocide, although Banjo1012 has brought it up (seemingly as a positive, oddly enough).
This statement is the cherry on top of your fundamental misunderstanding of Archer, and apparently the Prime Directive as well. You know...one of the most important guiding principles across multiple Trek series. That entire episode was a harsh lesson for Archer personally as well as all of humanity, and likely was the precipitating event for the Prime Directive to be enacted in the first place. Not only was it a watershed moment for Starfleet, it helped give Archer some perspective on how Vulcans saw humanity since first contact was made.
I can't be bothered to explain the issues to you - and luckily, a quick Google search means I don't have to! It looks like it's all been laid out dozens (possibly hundreds) of times for people without a science background.
While I'm adding a quote here, please do bother to read the actual article. I'm happy to help if you have any questions. Oddly enough, the network meddling is directly relevant here - the matter for which you laud Archer above apparently wasn't actually intended by the writers.
"The position adopted by Phlox and Archer is based on two serious misunderstandings of evolution. Phlox believes that the Valakian's have been evolving this way naturally. However, that is nonsensical on its face, because evolution by definition is the act of being better suited to survive. A species does not evolve into extinction, as the entire purpose of evolution is to avoid it."
(And, of course, it wouldn't be an Enterprise episode without something for the lowest-common-denominator - in this case, Archer speculating about some sort of future... "directive" *cringe!*)
Also, help me remember: how many schools were named after Zefram Cochrane and Jonathan Archer? Seems to me that an honor like that isn’t reserved for abject failures, right?
This statement is the cherry on top of your fundamental misunderstanding of what I've been asking for from the start. Once again, apparent results of Archer's actions - not what Archer has actually done to bring it about. Just like in the Sleeping Dogs example, it's easy for the writers to simply write that he won without him having done anything to deserve it. I don't follow what part of that is difficult to understand?
It's difficult to dumb this down any further, but I'll try with an analogy (bonus: this is a genuine true story). There's a famous idiot, Karl Pilkington, who had an idea for a new invention: a watch that counts down to tell you when you would die. He told his friend about the watch, and his friend asked, "How does it work?"
"Just put it on your wrist," said Karl.
What has Archer done to deserve being one of Starfleet's finest?
To say he was responsible for the Valakian genocide is ludicrous. He did the right thing in that situation.
He did not create the Valakian genocide but he certainly allowed it to continue. He had the power to end it and refused. That is quite evil. His lame justification was that if he did nothing the other species on planet, the Menk could become dominant? That he was not going to play God. But isn't having a cure and withholding it just as much playing God and deciding their fate as having a cure and giving it to the Valakians? Who else was going to come by and find a cure? The Ferengis? Archer refused to give them warp technology so that the Valakians could find others to help. Any other Starfleet captain would have cured the Valakians and told them the cure came from the Menk. They owe their existence to the Menk and get the Valakians to treat them as equals. Archer never even seems to check in later and see how things were going and whether the Valakians somehow found a cure. Archer could not be bothered.
My thought on the situation would have been if the Valakians were not capable of finding a cure on their own then they were not capable of advancing as a species in general to the next level of existence. And genocide is not the same as a species threatening illness. If that makes me an evil person then so be it, I am an evil person. On a similar token I also applaud his decision to preserve the last remnants of the Loque’eque species. As he said, this was a civilizations last attempt to preserve their species. To destroy it would be to destroy an entire species. So go ahead and tear that decision apart as well.
You've skipped his Valakian genocide, although Banjo1012 has brought it up (seemingly as a positive, oddly enough).
This statement is the cherry on top of your fundamental misunderstanding of Archer, and apparently the Prime Directive as well. You know...one of the most important guiding principles across multiple Trek series. That entire episode was a harsh lesson for Archer personally as well as all of humanity, and likely was the precipitating event for the Prime Directive to be enacted in the first place. Not only was it a watershed moment for Starfleet, it helped give Archer some perspective on how Vulcans saw humanity since first contact was made.
I can't be bothered to explain the issues to you - and luckily, a quick Google search means I don't have to! It looks like it's all been laid out dozens (possibly hundreds) of times for people without a science background.
While I'm adding a quote here, please do bother to read the actual article. I'm happy to help if you have any questions. Oddly enough, the network meddling is directly relevant here - the matter for which you laud Archer above apparently wasn't actually intended by the writers.
"The position adopted by Phlox and Archer is based on two serious misunderstandings of evolution. Phlox believes that the Valakian's have been evolving this way naturally. However, that is nonsensical on its face, because evolution by definition is the act of being better suited to survive. A species does not evolve into extinction, as the entire purpose of evolution is to avoid it."
(And, of course, it wouldn't be an Enterprise episode without something for the lowest-common-denominator - in this case, Archer speculating about some sort of future... "directive" *cringe!*)
Also, help me remember: how many schools were named after Zefram Cochrane and Jonathan Archer? Seems to me that an honor like that isn’t reserved for abject failures, right?
This statement is the cherry on top of your fundamental misunderstanding of what I've been asking for from the start. Once again, apparent results of Archer's actions - not what Archer has actually done to bring it about. Just like in the Sleeping Dogs example, it's easy for the writers to simply write that he won without him having done anything to deserve it. I don't follow what part of that is difficult to understand?
It's difficult to dumb this down any further, but I'll try with an analogy (bonus: this is a genuine true story). There's a famous idiot, Karl Pilkington, who had an idea for a new invention: a watch that counts down to tell you when you would die. He told his friend about the watch, and his friend asked, "How does it work?"
"Just put it on your wrist," said Karl.
What has Archer done to deserve being one of Starfleet's finest?
"He's got schools named after him."
......okaaaaay.....
You haven’t made any points, though...it’s all “REEEEEEEEEE I DON’T LIKE ARCHER AND YOU SHOULDN’T EITHER.” I can understand why you chose that link, however, as full of illogic and smug self-gratification as it was. The comparison to the events of Observer Effect alone reeks of desperately grabbing at straws to prove a point that has no basis in reality.
There have been some pretty inaccurate portrayals of evolution in this thread, so it might be a good idea for me to throw away a reply here to help in this area.
Evolution is not an intentional process, it just happens. Suggesting that a species is evolving to stay ahead of some stimuli or other is absurd.
Evolution is accidental, and not always progress, and yes, species absolutely evolve themselves out of existence all the time. I should unpack that statement though, because it would be very easy to read that as a contradiction to the first point. Evolution is the name we give to the process of a species changing/pivoting from what they were into what they became.
At its core, it represents a random mutation in the DNA that occurs in offspring. This mutation is not always going to be beneficial, nor is it likely to be intentional. Far too often the term evolution is thrown around in discussions such as these to imply, for example, that species A ran into environmental problem B, and made the decision to make change C to survive. This is false on every level.
You haven’t made any points, though...it’s all “REEEEEEEEEE I DON’T LIKE ARCHER AND YOU SHOULDN’T EITHER.”
Page one of this thread. A Night in Sickbay, Sleeping Dogs, and Archer Wants to Let His Crew Die on a Comet. Three examples of Archer's actions, clearly explained, from three different episodes. Go and have a look. I'll just wait here for my apology. (Do I need to say "REEEEEEEEEE" here? Is that part of normal communication between you and your peers?)
At the risk of correcting you further (this is becoming a habit!) I came here half-expecting to have my opinion changed, as I simply don't feel strongly about Archer and I haven't seen Enterprise in years! I was expecting a lot more correction than 'Trip said that, not Phlox'!
[/quote]I can understand why you chose that link, however, as full of illogic and smug self-gratification as it was. The comparison to the events of Observer Effect alone reeks of desperately grabbing at straws to prove a point that has no basis in reality. [/quote]
It was literally the top result from a Google search. If only I'd mentioned that at the time...
The science in that episode seemed universally panned when it premiered (although Phlox's great performance and what else we learn about him saves the episode from being awful). I hadn't even realised there was any debate over it. When I picture people who don't understand evolution, I imagine people living in shanty towns, or out in the wilderness, where education necessarily takes a back seat to survival. I don't think of people with Internet access, time for phone games, and time to write ten comments every day on a forum about a phone game.
But I suppose with the rise of the anti-vaxxers and the flat-Earthers, it shouldn't be forgotten just how widespread education poverty is, even in developed countries.
You haven’t made any points, though...it’s all “REEEEEEEEEE I DON’T LIKE ARCHER AND YOU SHOULDN’T EITHER.”
Page one of this thread. A Night in Sickbay, Sleeping Dogs, and Archer Wants to Let His Crew Die on a Comet. Three examples of Archer's actions, clearly explained, from three different episodes. Go and have a look. I'll just wait here for my apology. (Do I need to say "REEEEEEEEEE" here? Is that part of normal communication between you and your peers?)
At the risk of correcting you further (this is becoming a habit!) I came here half-expecting to have my opinion changed, as I simply don't feel strongly about Archer and I haven't seen Enterprise in years! I was expecting a lot more correction than 'Trip said that, not Phlox'!
I can understand why you chose that link, however, as full of illogic and smug self-gratification as it was. The comparison to the events of Observer Effect alone reeks of desperately grabbing at straws to prove a point that has no basis in reality.
It was literally the top result from a Google search. If only I'd mentioned that at the time...
The science in that episode seemed universally panned when it premiered (although Phlox's great performance and what else we learn about him saves the episode from being awful). I hadn't even realised there was any debate over it. When I picture people who don't understand evolution, I imagine people living in shanty towns, or out in the wilderness, where education necessarily takes a back seat to survival. I don't think of people with Internet access, time for phone games, and time to write ten comments every day on a forum about a phone game.
But I suppose with the rise of the anti-vaxxers and the flat-Earthers, it shouldn't be forgotten just how widespread education poverty is, even in developed countries.
There are some other captains that could be considered Starfleet finest and they are not here. For example: captain Solok, he was, after all, two times awarded the Christopher Pike Medal of Valor and that is not small thing.
There are some other captains that could be considered Starfleet finest and they are not here. For example: captain Solok, he was, after all, two times awarded the Christopher Pike Medal of Valor and that is not small thing.
Are you saying you have to be a diplomat to be Starfleets Finest.
No, I have never said that. I have pointed out his lack of diplomacy in several episodes. Then pointed out that a lack of training is not an excuse (in direct response to someone saying his lack of training is a good excuse).
It is his diplomacy that leads to the formation of the Federation. Which clearly it is shown, would not exist without him.
This is not "clearly" shown. It's never shown. It's attributed to him, but we never saw him doing anything great or special. Tucker could have probably achieved exactly the same results. Maybe even Mayweather. (Not Malcolm, obviously.) Again, onscreen stuff, please.
the comet one. He was not willing to let his crew die. He was never allowed to make his choice. T'Pol comes in with her speech. There is no proof that he would not have come to this decision without T'Pol's statement.
Ermmm... OK. We call that the "negative proof fallacy".
Who brought Vulcan's the true teachings of Surak. At the same time put's an end to the corrupt leader of the Vulcan High Command.The Forge, The Awakening, Kir'Shara three part episode.
Who kept the Romulan's from causing havoc, distrust and war. In same episode, unites the Talerites and the Andorians.Babel One,United,The Aenar three parts
Who exposes the lies of the Vulcans of not using their temple to hide a spying facility to spy on Andorians in violation of their treaty. The Andorian Incident
Who creates an ally with the Xindi's who were bent on Earth's destruction.Countdown
Who was called on to help to create a new treaty between the Andorians and Vulcans.Cease Fire
The episode Demons does talk about the beginnings of the Federation definite reference by T'Pol of Archer's contribution.
Perhaps I'd have to rewatch those episodes to be sure, because again, unlike my case studies, you haven't said what Archer specifically did that wouldn't have simply happened with any other person in that position. My knee-jerk reaction is that Archer didn't do anything special in any of those cases (and, indeed, gave the Andorians the evidence simply because Archer's anti-Vulcan). You've skipped his Valakian genocide, although Banjo1012 has brought it up (seemingly as a positive, oddly enough).
Really, don't worry about it if you can't find anything. It's OK to like a captain just because you like a captain. I've shared my opinion of why Archer might* not be considered Starfleet's finest, and been fortunate enough to be able to back it up with clear examples. That doesn't invalidate your opinion in any way.
*It's all moot as he was in the Starfleet's Finest pack before, anyway. He is one of Starfleet's finest! He was simply replaced by Georgiou last year, understandably - she's more relevant today, and the other captains are more popular. And from a sheer gameplay perspective, the other captains have better numbers than COP Archer, and having 7+ in a pack would be an unwelcome change as it dilutes the chance of getting the character you want!
Beginning of the episode Home.
He is being honored by Starfleet as a a Hero.
So starfleet considers him more than just their finest.
It is interesting you go to the excuse, that anybody could have done it.
Because, that is the statement that the people who are considered heroes usually say themselves.
People are not honored because anybody could have done it. They are honored because they did it.
You haven’t made any points, though...it’s all “REEEEEEEEEE I DON’T LIKE ARCHER AND YOU SHOULDN’T EITHER.”
Page one of this thread. A Night in Sickbay, Sleeping Dogs, and Archer Wants to Let His Crew Die on a Comet. Three examples of Archer's actions, clearly explained, from three different episodes. Go and have a look. I'll just wait here for my apology. (Do I need to say "REEEEEEEEEE" here? Is that part of normal communication between you and your peers?)
At the risk of correcting you further (this is becoming a habit!) I came here half-expecting to have my opinion changed, as I simply don't feel strongly about Archer and I haven't seen Enterprise in years! I was expecting a lot more correction than 'Trip said that, not Phlox'!
I can understand why you chose that link, however, as full of illogic and smug self-gratification as it was. The comparison to the events of Observer Effect alone reeks of desperately grabbing at straws to prove a point that has no basis in reality.
It was literally the top result from a Google search. If only I'd mentioned that at the time...
The science in that episode seemed universally panned when it premiered (although Phlox's great performance and what else we learn about him saves the episode from being awful). I hadn't even realised there was any debate over it. When I picture people who don't understand evolution, I imagine people living in shanty towns, or out in the wilderness, where education necessarily takes a back seat to survival. I don't think of people with Internet access, time for phone games, and time to write ten comments every day on a forum about a phone game.
But I suppose with the rise of the anti-vaxxers and the flat-Earthers, it shouldn't be forgotten just how widespread education poverty is, even in developed countries.
Wow...you really made some leaps there. The source you cited relies exclusively on a very wrong interpretation of evolution (that it’s impossible to have evolutionary dead ends or for speciation to lead to extinction rather than continued prosperity), and because I disagree with it I am apparently not only uneducated on evolution but am being compared to anti-vaxxers (a.k.a. plague rats) and flat-Earthers (the geographically-, geometrically-, and physics-challenged). Way to go, dude. You must feel pretty superior behind your keyboard right now.
I’d say more but I am reminded of what Shan would expect of us.
Mainly it is hard to differentiate sometimes between bad writing and the likeability or quality of a character. Some like Archer, some don't. Enterprise had a slow start but wasnt given as much time to get going afterwards that Voyager had with its slow start. The good news is that Discovery got picked up for season 3, the new Picard show starts filming April 15 and there are hundreds of star trek books for Enterprise and the other series.
You haven’t made any points, though...it’s all “REEEEEEEEEE I DON’T LIKE ARCHER AND YOU SHOULDN’T EITHER.”
Page one of this thread. A Night in Sickbay, Sleeping Dogs, and Archer Wants to Let His Crew Die on a Comet. Three examples of Archer's actions, clearly explained, from three different episodes. Go and have a look. I'll just wait here for my apology. (Do I need to say "REEEEEEEEEE" here? Is that part of normal communication between you and your peers?)
At the risk of correcting you further (this is becoming a habit!) I came here half-expecting to have my opinion changed, as I simply don't feel strongly about Archer and I haven't seen Enterprise in years! I was expecting a lot more correction than 'Trip said that, not Phlox'!
I can understand why you chose that link, however, as full of illogic and smug self-gratification as it was. The comparison to the events of Observer Effect alone reeks of desperately grabbing at straws to prove a point that has no basis in reality.
It was literally the top result from a Google search. If only I'd mentioned that at the time...
The science in that episode seemed universally panned when it premiered (although Phlox's great performance and what else we learn about him saves the episode from being awful). I hadn't even realised there was any debate over it. When I picture people who don't understand evolution, I imagine people living in shanty towns, or out in the wilderness, where education necessarily takes a back seat to survival. I don't think of people with Internet access, time for phone games, and time to write ten comments every day on a forum about a phone game.
But I suppose with the rise of the anti-vaxxers and the flat-Earthers, it shouldn't be forgotten just how widespread education poverty is, even in developed countries.
Wow...you really made some leaps there. The source you cited relies exclusively on a very wrong interpretation of evolution (that it’s impossible to have evolutionary dead ends or for speciation to lead to extinction rather than continued prosperity), and because I disagree with it I am apparently not only uneducated on evolution but am being compared to anti-vaxxers (a.k.a. plague rats) and flat-Earthers (the geographically-, geometrically-, and physics-challenged). Way to go, dude. You must feel pretty superior behind your keyboard right now.
Huh. I've just read through the link properly, and I'm sorry - even though the bulk of those dozens of paragraphs is correct, there are definitely a couple of mistakes. At two points evolution is conflated with survival of the fittest, and "A species does not evolve into extinction, as the entire purpose of evolution is to avoid it" is quite a shocking sentence - evolution with purpose? Yikes! But oddly enough, you've missed the point. Either you're saying that the science of evolution as presented in Dear Doctor is good (double-yikes!), or you're just desperately logic-chopping to avoid the actual point at hand? (That's not a false dilemma - my point hinged around the episode's science being bad. It didn't hinge around there being zero mistakes in the link that happened to be top of a Google search.)
Given your last two comments, though, I can certainly understand why you wouldn't think Archer was childish. So I think we've achieved some agreement! Isn't diplomacy great? I'm a trained diplomat, dontchaknow.
You haven’t made any points, though...it’s all “REEEEEEEEEE I DON’T LIKE ARCHER AND YOU SHOULDN’T EITHER.”
Page one of this thread. A Night in Sickbay, Sleeping Dogs, and Archer Wants to Let His Crew Die on a Comet. Three examples of Archer's actions, clearly explained, from three different episodes. Go and have a look. I'll just wait here for my apology. (Do I need to say "REEEEEEEEEE" here? Is that part of normal communication between you and your peers?)
At the risk of correcting you further (this is becoming a habit!) I came here half-expecting to have my opinion changed, as I simply don't feel strongly about Archer and I haven't seen Enterprise in years! I was expecting a lot more correction than 'Trip said that, not Phlox'!
I can understand why you chose that link, however, as full of illogic and smug self-gratification as it was. The comparison to the events of Observer Effect alone reeks of desperately grabbing at straws to prove a point that has no basis in reality.
It was literally the top result from a Google search. If only I'd mentioned that at the time...
The science in that episode seemed universally panned when it premiered (although Phlox's great performance and what else we learn about him saves the episode from being awful). I hadn't even realised there was any debate over it. When I picture people who don't understand evolution, I imagine people living in shanty towns, or out in the wilderness, where education necessarily takes a back seat to survival. I don't think of people with Internet access, time for phone games, and time to write ten comments every day on a forum about a phone game.
But I suppose with the rise of the anti-vaxxers and the flat-Earthers, it shouldn't be forgotten just how widespread education poverty is, even in developed countries.
Wow...you really made some leaps there. The source you cited relies exclusively on a very wrong interpretation of evolution (that it’s impossible to have evolutionary dead ends or for speciation to lead to extinction rather than continued prosperity), and because I disagree with it I am apparently not only uneducated on evolution but am being compared to anti-vaxxers (a.k.a. plague rats) and flat-Earthers (the geographically-, geometrically-, and physics-challenged). Way to go, dude. You must feel pretty superior behind your keyboard right now.
Huh. I've just read through the link properly, and I'm sorry - even though the bulk of those dozens of paragraphs is correct, there are definitely a couple of mistakes. At two points evolution is conflated with survival of the fittest, and "A species does not evolve into extinction, as the entire purpose of evolution is to avoid it" is quite a shocking sentence - evolution with purpose? Yikes! But oddly enough, you've missed the point. Either you're saying that the science of evolution as presented in Dear Doctor is good (double-yikes!), or you're just desperately logic-chopping to avoid the actual point at hand? (That's not a false dilemma - my point hinged around the episode's science being bad. It didn't hinge around there being zero mistakes in the link that happened to be top of a Google search.)
Given your last two comments, though, I can certainly understand why you wouldn't think Archer was childish. So I think we've achieved some agreement! Isn't diplomacy great? I'm a trained diplomat, dontchaknow.
It does seem powerfully odd that we would agree on something...I just don’t think of crucifying a character when the fault is with the writer. “Immune to genetic condition” is what a writer trying to make something “sciency” would say, not someone with multiple actual medical and scientific degrees. Kosinski, on the other hand, clearly had no idea what he was doing during those warp drive upgrades and wouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near the engine room of Starfleet’s flagship if it weren’t for The Traveler’s meddling.
I just don’t think of crucifying a character when the fault is with the writer.
Archer isn't a real person, you know? What is a Trek character apart from the writers who write them and the actor who portrays them?
Without Bakula bringing anything to the table, Archer can only be the sum of the writers.
Edit: I mean, that's what I judge him on. I know others judge him on offscreen accomplishments attributed to him, too.
Archer, not being a real person and therefore not having any agency over what he says or does, cannot be at fault for saying or doing something boneheaded. Should that criticism not rightly be directed at the writer responsible for having him say or do something boneheaded?
Comments
Here he is, further from Earth than any human has ever been--effectively all out there alone without any reasonable expectation of back-up. No Starfeet, or even Starfleet-friendly outpost to pop in on if needed. He could have been defensive and protective of Enterprise's resources, and it would have been perfectly reasonable. Instead, he offered generosity, under the presumption that it would generate goodwill and that in the end, whatever needs Enterprise had would be met in kind if not by this people, then by the next. And he made those assumptions because of a fundamental belief in the goodness of the universe.
I can't emphasize enough, for those who may not recall, how strikingly that attitude contrasted with the post-9/11 zeitgeist of the show's production. Season 3 Archer is a reflection of that zeitgeist, and it's unsettling because it's so antithetical to the innocence that he started with. And that's also why it's so gratifying to see him rebuild that throughout Season 4.
He built up his crew, offering encouragement in ways that none of the other captains were comfotable doing. When he said, "I know you can do this", it didn't feel like Something a Captain Says to Talk Someone Into Doing Something They Don't Think They Can Do, but a sincere expression of someone who knew the person he was addressing well enough to see their potential and strengths.
So anyway, that's what I appreciate about the guy.
Oh! And he had Porthos. I can't dislike a guy with a beagle unless he's mean to said beagle, which was clearly not the case.
Let's start off with Tucker commenting about Archer being a "Trained diplomat"
This is Archer and Trip. This statement carries no wait. These guys are friends.
But, what is the point. Are you saying you have to be a diplomat to be Starfleets Finest. Then clearly we know that Archer is a diplomat. A proven diplomat. It is his diplomacy that leads to the formation of the Federation. Which clearly it is shown, would not exist without him.
the comet one. He was not willing to let his crew die. He was never allowed to make his choice. T'Pol comes in with her speech. There is no proof that he would not have come to this decision without T'Pol's statement. The three incidents I point out are more like the writer is trying to show children growing up. Seems to go along with the snowman being built on the comet by Reed and Mayweather.
Who brought Vulcan's the true teachings of Surak. At the same time put's an end to the corrupt leader of the Vulcan High Command.The Forge, The Awakening, Kir'Shara three part episode.
Who kept the Romulan's from causing havoc, distrust and war. In same episode, unites the Talerites and the Andorians.Babel One,United,The Aenar three parts
Who exposes the lies of the Vulcans of not using their temple to hide a spying facility to spy on Andorians in violation of their treaty. The Andorian Incident
Who creates an ally with the Xindi's who were bent on Earth's destruction.Countdown
Who was called on to help to create a new treaty between the Andorians and Vulcans.Cease Fire
The episode Demons does talk about the beginnings of the Federation definite reference by T'Pol of Archer's contribution.
This is not "clearly" shown. It's never shown. It's attributed to him, but we never saw him doing anything great or special. Tucker could have probably achieved exactly the same results. Maybe even Mayweather. (Not Malcolm, obviously.) Again, onscreen stuff, please.
Ermmm... OK. We call that the "negative proof fallacy".
Perhaps I'd have to rewatch those episodes to be sure, because again, unlike my case studies, you haven't said what Archer specifically did that wouldn't have simply happened with any other person in that position. My knee-jerk reaction is that Archer didn't do anything special in any of those cases (and, indeed, gave the Andorians the evidence simply because Archer's anti-Vulcan). You've skipped his Valakian genocide, although Banjo1012 has brought it up (seemingly as a positive, oddly enough).
Really, don't worry about it if you can't find anything. It's OK to like a captain just because you like a captain. I've shared my opinion of why Archer might* not be considered Starfleet's finest, and been fortunate enough to be able to back it up with clear examples. That doesn't invalidate your opinion in any way.
*It's all moot as he was in the Starfleet's Finest pack before, anyway. He is one of Starfleet's finest! He was simply replaced by Georgiou last year, understandably - she's more relevant today, and the other captains are more popular. And from a sheer gameplay perspective, the other captains have better numbers than COP Archer, and having 7+ in a pack would be an unwelcome change as it dilutes the chance of getting the character you want!
This statement is the cherry on top of your fundamental misunderstanding of Archer, and apparently the Prime Directive as well. You know...one of the most important guiding principles across multiple Trek series. That entire episode was a harsh lesson for Archer personally as well as all of humanity, and likely was the precipitating event for the Prime Directive to be enacted in the first place. Not only was it a watershed moment for Starfleet, it helped give Archer some perspective on how Vulcans saw humanity since first contact was made.
Also, help me remember: how many schools were named after Zefram Cochrane and Jonathan Archer? Seems to me that an honor like that isn’t reserved for abject failures, right?
Top link seemed to cover the basics from a ten-second scan: http://www.ditl.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4089
While I'm adding a quote here, please do bother to read the actual article. I'm happy to help if you have any questions. Oddly enough, the network meddling is directly relevant here - the matter for which you laud Archer above apparently wasn't actually intended by the writers.
"The position adopted by Phlox and Archer is based on two serious misunderstandings of evolution. Phlox believes that the Valakian's have been evolving this way naturally. However, that is nonsensical on its face, because evolution by definition is the act of being better suited to survive. A species does not evolve into extinction, as the entire purpose of evolution is to avoid it."
(And, of course, it wouldn't be an Enterprise episode without something for the lowest-common-denominator - in this case, Archer speculating about some sort of future... "directive" *cringe!*)
This statement is the cherry on top of your fundamental misunderstanding of what I've been asking for from the start. Once again, apparent results of Archer's actions - not what Archer has actually done to bring it about. Just like in the Sleeping Dogs example, it's easy for the writers to simply write that he won without him having done anything to deserve it. I don't follow what part of that is difficult to understand?
It's difficult to dumb this down any further, but I'll try with an analogy (bonus: this is a genuine true story). There's a famous idiot, Karl Pilkington, who had an idea for a new invention: a watch that counts down to tell you when you would die. He told his friend about the watch, and his friend asked, "How does it work?"
"Just put it on your wrist," said Karl.
What has Archer done to deserve being one of Starfleet's finest?
"He's got schools named after him."
......okaaaaay.....
You haven’t made any points, though...it’s all “REEEEEEEEEE I DON’T LIKE ARCHER AND YOU SHOULDN’T EITHER.” I can understand why you chose that link, however, as full of illogic and smug self-gratification as it was. The comparison to the events of Observer Effect alone reeks of desperately grabbing at straws to prove a point that has no basis in reality.
Evolution is not an intentional process, it just happens. Suggesting that a species is evolving to stay ahead of some stimuli or other is absurd.
Evolution is accidental, and not always progress, and yes, species absolutely evolve themselves out of existence all the time. I should unpack that statement though, because it would be very easy to read that as a contradiction to the first point. Evolution is the name we give to the process of a species changing/pivoting from what they were into what they became.
At its core, it represents a random mutation in the DNA that occurs in offspring. This mutation is not always going to be beneficial, nor is it likely to be intentional. Far too often the term evolution is thrown around in discussions such as these to imply, for example, that species A ran into environmental problem B, and made the decision to make change C to survive. This is false on every level.
At the risk of correcting you further (this is becoming a habit!) I came here half-expecting to have my opinion changed, as I simply don't feel strongly about Archer and I haven't seen Enterprise in years! I was expecting a lot more correction than 'Trip said that, not Phlox'!
[/quote]I can understand why you chose that link, however, as full of illogic and smug self-gratification as it was. The comparison to the events of Observer Effect alone reeks of desperately grabbing at straws to prove a point that has no basis in reality. [/quote]
It was literally the top result from a Google search. If only I'd mentioned that at the time...
The science in that episode seemed universally panned when it premiered (although Phlox's great performance and what else we learn about him saves the episode from being awful). I hadn't even realised there was any debate over it. When I picture people who don't understand evolution, I imagine people living in shanty towns, or out in the wilderness, where education necessarily takes a back seat to survival. I don't think of people with Internet access, time for phone games, and time to write ten comments every day on a forum about a phone game.
But I suppose with the rise of the anti-vaxxers and the flat-Earthers, it shouldn't be forgotten just how widespread education poverty is, even in developed countries.
At the risk of correcting you further (this is becoming a habit!) I came here half-expecting to have my opinion changed, as I simply don't feel strongly about Archer and I haven't seen Enterprise in years! I was expecting a lot more correction than 'Trip said that, not Phlox'!
It was literally the top result from a Google search. If only I'd mentioned that at the time...
The science in that episode seemed universally panned when it premiered (although Phlox's great performance and what else we learn about him saves the episode from being awful). I hadn't even realised there was any debate over it. When I picture people who don't understand evolution, I imagine people living in shanty towns, or out in the wilderness, where education necessarily takes a back seat to survival. I don't think of people with Internet access, time for phone games, and time to write ten comments every day on a forum about a phone game.
But I suppose with the rise of the anti-vaxxers and the flat-Earthers, it shouldn't be forgotten just how widespread education poverty is, even in developed countries.
Pfft. Dude can't tell a Trill from a human.
Beginning of the episode Home.
He is being honored by Starfleet as a a Hero.
So starfleet considers him more than just their finest.
It is interesting you go to the excuse, that anybody could have done it.
Because, that is the statement that the people who are considered heroes usually say themselves.
People are not honored because anybody could have done it. They are honored because they did it.
But, there probably are some others who name comes before Archer.
Wow...you really made some leaps there. The source you cited relies exclusively on a very wrong interpretation of evolution (that it’s impossible to have evolutionary dead ends or for speciation to lead to extinction rather than continued prosperity), and because I disagree with it I am apparently not only uneducated on evolution but am being compared to anti-vaxxers (a.k.a. plague rats) and flat-Earthers (the geographically-, geometrically-, and physics-challenged). Way to go, dude. You must feel pretty superior behind your keyboard right now.
I’d say more but I am reminded of what Shan would expect of us.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Prime_Directive
This will be starfleets main principle
Huh. I've just read through the link properly, and I'm sorry - even though the bulk of those dozens of paragraphs is correct, there are definitely a couple of mistakes. At two points evolution is conflated with survival of the fittest, and "A species does not evolve into extinction, as the entire purpose of evolution is to avoid it" is quite a shocking sentence - evolution with purpose? Yikes! But oddly enough, you've missed the point. Either you're saying that the science of evolution as presented in Dear Doctor is good (double-yikes!), or you're just desperately logic-chopping to avoid the actual point at hand? (That's not a false dilemma - my point hinged around the episode's science being bad. It didn't hinge around there being zero mistakes in the link that happened to be top of a Google search.)
Given your last two comments, though, I can certainly understand why you wouldn't think Archer was childish. So I think we've achieved some agreement!
It does seem powerfully odd that we would agree on something...I just don’t think of crucifying a character when the fault is with the writer. “Immune to genetic condition” is what a writer trying to make something “sciency” would say, not someone with multiple actual medical and scientific degrees. Kosinski, on the other hand, clearly had no idea what he was doing during those warp drive upgrades and wouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near the engine room of Starfleet’s flagship if it weren’t for The Traveler’s meddling.
Without Bakula bringing anything to the table, Archer can only be the sum of the writers.
Edit: I mean, that's what I judge him on. I know others judge him on offscreen accomplishments attributed to him, too.
Archer, not being a real person and therefore not having any agency over what he says or does, cannot be at fault for saying or doing something boneheaded. Should that criticism not rightly be directed at the writer responsible for having him say or do something boneheaded?