Lazerlike42 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:27 am
I know this is likely a point of disagreement among fans, but I'd never really considered the show to be trying to portray Archer as a great leader. One of the big themes early on in the series is that they really have no idea what they're doing, and it gets them into trouble quite often. I think it's a mistake to interpret this stuff - Archer's attitude included - to be awful, tone deaf attempts at portraying the crew in a positive light. I think we're supposed to see them as messing up and being largely terrible at what they're doing.
Now, I would say that I think that by mid season two and onward they are trying to portray Archer (and everyone else, for the most part) as finally starting to "get it" and doing the right stuff, and I think at this point it really does come across as tone deaf and terrible because the show's idea of what "getting it" means is aa mess.
For example, I just rewatched the very late season 2 episode Cogenitor tonight with my wife, who is watching for the first time, and I remembered how awful it is. Archer reaches Janeway levels of hypocrisy and blaming the people who are actually trying to do something about an atrocity and it seems like the show is, in this case, trying to praise him for it. I think it's supposed to be a case of showing how Archer is finally coming to the "enlightened" view that would become the prime-directive and that he's learned his lesson from past mistakes like when he tried to actually help people and all.
Interesting take. I could definitely see that... Archer as precisely the WRONG man for the job, who slowly grows into the role.
The problem there is probably largely in the lack of cohesive writing, and the difficulty of utilizing a character like that without turning fans off to him (and the show in general). That might be why the show worked better from season 3 on... a more serialized storyline works MUCH better with that character.
Lazerlike42 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:27 am
I know this is likely a point of disagreement among fans, but I'd never really considered the show to be trying to portray Archer as a great leader. One of the big themes early on in the series is that they really have no idea what they're doing, and it gets them into trouble quite often. I think it's a mistake to interpret this stuff - Archer's attitude included - to be awful, tone deaf attempts at portraying the crew in a positive light. I think we're supposed to see them as messing up and being largely terrible at what they're doing.
Now, I would say that I think that by mid season two and onward they are trying to portray Archer (and everyone else, for the most part) as finally starting to "get it" and doing the right stuff, and I think at this point it really does come across as tone deaf and terrible because the show's idea of what "getting it" means is aa mess.
For example, I just rewatched the very late season 2 episode Cogenitor tonight with my wife, who is watching for the first time, and I remembered how awful it is. Archer reaches Janeway levels of hypocrisy and blaming the people who are actually trying to do something about an atrocity and it seems like the show is, in this case, trying to praise him for it. I think it's supposed to be a case of showing how Archer is finally coming to the "enlightened" view that would become the prime-directive and that he's learned his lesson from past mistakes like when he tried to actually help people and all.
Interesting take. I could definitely see that... Archer as precisely the WRONG man for the job, who slowly grows into the role.
The problem there is probably largely in the lack of cohesive writing, and the difficulty of utilizing a character like that without turning fans off to him (and the show in general). That might be why the show worked better from season 3 on... a more serialized storyline works MUCH better with that character.
A common fan consensus is that he got the job through nepotism - it is his dad's engine after all. ''First Flight'' seems to contradict this, but then again perhaps not, as he should have been court martialled for that stunt and instead he got everything he ever dreamed of. Starfleet would do this again for Kirk in Star Trek 4 of course but at least in that case he did just save billions of people.
I want to take a half step back. How many here play or have played a table top RPG like Dungeons and Dragons?
Because it seems like the campaign plot was written with a basic idea.
Then the players rolled characters that seemed to fit but actually didn't for the campaign.
Archer didn't seem a bigot. He seemed like a teen told that even though they have a license and a car and turn eighteen tomorrow. They may not drive till they are thirty. Most of what he wants to do initially is push out the door and defy the vulcans always telling humanity what and how to do everything. To the point that yes if a vulcan told him to turn right to reach engineering he would turn left. Just to spite the elf. Lines like he is a trained diplomat that seem to shock Chuck. I took two years of French class in junior high. I passed, barely. I can't speak French, I can't really read French. But I am 'trained' in it. IE Archer passed a class, that does not mean he is good at it. I hate to say this but I put Archer at the same level as an old school comic villain. The old villain wants to take over the world. And if they do they have no clue what to do once they get there. Archer wanted to be Captain. . . Now what?
T'Pol in my opinion was James May on the trip to the north pole. The first to do this that really didn't want to. Does the job but would really rather be some where warmer.
Mayweather had so many chances to be good but barely had proper focus.
Hoshi was a concept character that felt like (going back to the DnD comparison) the player only rarely showed up and was barely used.
Trip I swear I have a weak hold on. It is like he was written as two different southerners. The loud and in your face angry kind. And the laid back and just takes it in kind.
Reed sadly seems to have been written as the original Worf. You are here to be scoffed at for wanting to do your job. I don't see Picard simply accepting the risks. I see him lecturing Reed that he was being paranoid. Just because someone is shooting at you and screaming to wipe out our species does not mean they are not friendly. I also don't think Kirk and Sisko would have the same reaction. Kirk would nod and say he is going in anyway. Sisko would be a more balanced, "What do you suggest?" Then make a call from there. (In a crisis I think I want Sisko in command)
Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:18 pm
Everyone wants Sisko until he beings out the bioweapons or covers up assassinations.
Oddly I am not sure about that?
He did not put the bio-weapon to the founders. Section 31 did.
His bombing of the planet while chasing Eddington goes grey to me because the Maquis were holding a world that should have been Cardassian and the Maquis had rendered a Cardassian world uninhabitable to them. So he forced a planet swap. Keeps the treaty and punishes the Maquis in one event. He also blackmails Eddington into surrender. That is lots of wins.
The assassination of the senator. Odd I was commenting on this in the STO forums about him.
But it was clear Sisko did not intend to do that. Garak had the man killed. No one on the command staff knew about it but Sisko. And he struggled and lamented it. And finally consoled himself that his guilt was worth the lives saved. I would rather have a commander that takes such actions seriously than casually.
Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:18 pm
Everyone wants Sisko until he beings out the bioweapons or covers up assassinations.
Oddly I am not sure about that?
He did not put the bio-weapon to the founders. Section 31 did.
His bombing of the planet while chasing Eddington goes grey to me because the Maquis were holding a world that should have been Cardassian and the Maquis had rendered a Cardassian world uninhabitable to them. So he forced a planet swap. Keeps the treaty and punishes the Maquis in one event. He also blackmails Eddington into surrender. That is lots of wins.
The assassination of the senator. Odd I was commenting on this in the STO forums about him.
But it was clear Sisko did not intend to do that. Garak had the man killed. No one on the command staff knew about it but Sisko. And he struggled and lamented it. And finally consoled himself that his guilt was worth the lives saved. I would rather have a commander that takes such actions seriously than casually.
I have never understood why infecting the changelings with a disease is controversial. They are like the Borg - they are a hive mind thanks to the Link. There are no innocent changelings. All of them are guilty of the genocide of billions.
Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:18 pm
Everyone wants Sisko until he beings out the bioweapons or covers up assassinations.
Oddly I am not sure about that?
He did not put the bio-weapon to the founders. Section 31 did.
His bombing of the planet while chasing Eddington goes grey to me because the Maquis were holding a world that should have been Cardassian and the Maquis had rendered a Cardassian world uninhabitable to them. So he forced a planet swap. Keeps the treaty and punishes the Maquis in one event. He also blackmails Eddington into surrender. That is lots of wins.
The assassination of the senator. Odd I was commenting on this in the STO forums about him.
But it was clear Sisko did not intend to do that. Garak had the man killed. No one on the command staff knew about it but Sisko. And he struggled and lamented it. And finally consoled himself that his guilt was worth the lives saved. I would rather have a commander that takes such actions seriously than casually.
I have never understood why infecting the changelings with a disease is controversial. They are like the Borg - they are a hive mind thanks to the Link. There are no innocent changelings. All of them are guilty of the genocide of billions.
I wouldn't hesitate. Simple as that.
I can give exactly two I know of on screen that I would argue that point.
Odo and the child changeling he found. The child knew nothing of the link or the former works. Odo found out later and rejected the Link because of it.
So, ahm 99.999999% of changelings are guilty?
Or even from a pragmatic perspective, that if you destroy the Changelings the best result you get is you destroy the central command and now you longer have a central command to negotiate with, just thousands of angry warbands.
"I know what you’re thinking now. You’re thinking 'Oh my god, that’s treating other people with respect gone mad!'" When I am writing in this font, I am writing in my moderator voice.
Spam-desu
Jonathan101 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:18 pm
Everyone wants Sisko until he beings out the bioweapons or covers up assassinations.
Oddly I am not sure about that?
He did not put the bio-weapon to the founders. Section 31 did.
His bombing of the planet while chasing Eddington goes grey to me because the Maquis were holding a world that should have been Cardassian and the Maquis had rendered a Cardassian world uninhabitable to them. So he forced a planet swap. Keeps the treaty and punishes the Maquis in one event. He also blackmails Eddington into surrender. That is lots of wins.
The assassination of the senator. Odd I was commenting on this in the STO forums about him.
But it was clear Sisko did not intend to do that. Garak had the man killed. No one on the command staff knew about it but Sisko. And he struggled and lamented it. And finally consoled himself that his guilt was worth the lives saved. I would rather have a commander that takes such actions seriously than casually.
It was the Cardassian incident I was referring to yes, and I'm pretty sure that poisoning a planet to render it uninhabitable and force the residents to leave would constitute a crime against humanity in the real world, treaties be damned. The fact that he is responding to the actions of a terrorist is irrelevant since the vast majority of people on that planet are not part of Eddington's cell- that's like targeting skyscrapers in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan solely to spite or force the hand of Osama bin Laden.
As to the Senator, that's only true is you dismiss what Garak believed- that on some level Sisko expected Garak to kill someone from the beginning, maybe got his hopes up when Garak "only" came up with fake evidence of Dominion plots against the Romulans, then was enraged only to learn that Garak did indeed plan on killing someone all along. I also don't think the Romulans would care that they were dragged into a war on phony evidence and the murder of their Senator but "the guy who did it felt really, really bad about it (before deciding he could live with it and covered up the evidence)". Americans were furious to learn that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fake but that didn't involve a Senator (and his staff) being assassinated.
