A Look at Archer

[MerelyAFan]

https://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/bio_archer.php

Archer always felt endemic of how much Trek was taking the audience for granted by the time of Enterprise. He was a character that was expected to be liked and respected seemingly because he was the captain of the ship and because he was fighting against the close minded Vulcans.

There's endless reasons as to why its hard to find him likable or even credible in his role. But the more significant failure was that Archer wasn't interesting; something that even previous captains were able to be. Early Picard was a grumpy, self righteous jerk sure, but he was clearly intelligent and Stewart was able to portray nuance to him despite constant speechifying. Janeway struggled to be consistently characterized and while the love the crew seemingly had for her rarely felt genuine, there was at least a sense that their respect was legit. Not to mention that, like Stewart, Mulgrew could give a sense of the troubled woman underneath when the story allowed.

With Archer, he never quite gets there. Bakula is at times able to give him a somewhat charming everyman quality in the latter half of the show. However it was difficult to get a sense of real depth with him even when the show got better. He basically moves from a self assured daddy's boy idiot to well meaning and somewhat competent average joe and while that is an improvement, he doesn't feel any more well rounded, just more tolerable. Its especially telling given that even Tucker managed to seem like a real person in season 3/4 and he started out as even more of a caricature than Archer did.

Ultimately the character was just never well conceived and as good as Bakula is as an actor, he never really felt like he gave Archer the sense of command authority that the role desperately needed. Him as the leader of a small freighter vessel that rarely runs into trouble I could buy, but as the one put in place for Earth's big warp capable ship? No.

[Wargriffin]

If Janeway is the Captain no one could agree what her character was

Archer is the Captain no one had any idea what to do with

[Taurian Patriot]

But the more significant failure was that Archer wasn't interesting; something that even previous captains were able to be.

I decided to do a little exercise right now and think about words and short phrases I could use to describe the Trek captains, just off the top of my head.

Kirk: Daring and assertive, a risk-taker but willing to accept consequences
Picard: Philosophical and dignified, wins confrontations with weaponized rhetoric
Sisko: Conflicted but adaptable, willing to dirty his hands for the greater good
Janeway: Inconsistent (thanks to mediocre writing), but absolutely trying to hold things together in a miserable situation
Archer: Petulant

Yeah, "petulant." I can't think of anything that sums him up better. When Archer wasn't making mistakes out of pure stubbornness, he was whining about other people calling out his mistakes or expecting him to correct them. He comes off like a child who thinks he's got the whole world figured out, then blames everything except himself whenever he's proven wrong.

What I'm taking away from this is that "Don't fail" is really bad advice to give to your kids without elaboration or context. With those words as the foundation of his personal philosophy, poor Jonathan Archer had no chance but to fail constantly.

EDIT: Why yes, I did totally forget about the captains on Discovery. No, it wasn't intentional, it just didn't cross my mind until now. I guess Pike gets honorable mention as "Actually feels like a Star Trek character?"

[MerelyAFan]

But the more significant failure was that Archer wasn't interesting; something that even previous captains were able to be.

Yeah, "petulant." I can't think of anything that sums him up better. When Archer wasn't making mistakes out of pure stubbornness, he was whining about other people calling out his mistakes or expecting him to correct them. He comes off like a child who thinks he's got the whole world figured out, then blames everything except himself whenever he's proven wrong.

What I'm taking away from this is that "Don't fail" is really bad advice to give to your kids without elaboration or context. With those words as the foundation of his personal philosophy, poor Jonathan Archer had no chance but to fail constantly.

In that sense, Archer almost feels like the captain you'd see in an episode of latter era TNG, DS9, or even Voyager; in a story acting a cynical exploration of Starfleet's structure showing how its not always the best and brightest that end up in the big chair. I can so easily imagine a conversation between Picard, Riker, & Troi where as much as the former is attempting to be diplomatic about his objections to Archer's ways while the latter two being much more upfront.

Picard: Just because his methods may not be to our liking does not mean his command has been compromised or that is our place to tell him how to make decisions.
Riker: Captain, with all due respect to his rank, everything I see on Archer's ship doesn't fill me with confidence about his qualities as a leader. I can't speak to what he's been, but everything I know tells me the man over there now is someone trying to convince himself that he's a Captain of a Starship than actually being one.
Picard: That may be your inference, but it is just the observation of one officer, Number One.
Troi: I have spent some time with Captain Archer myself, and while I don't believe he has any overt deception or ill intent, I did sense there's a great deal of fear and anger in him that's he's working very hard to hide.
Picard: You think he's a danger Counselor?
Troi: At the moment, no. But I can't speak for his ability to handle a crisis if the success of this mission is at all threatened.
Riker: Sir, if things do get to that point, as much as I don't like it as an option, for the safety of that crew, someone might need to take command of that ship, even if it means relieving Captain Archer of duty.

*Dramatic musical sting and close-up on Picard's concerned face as TNG goes to commercial*

[Link8909]

Ah Archer, the only character in all of Star Trek that gave the fans of the franchise the mental image of the hero of this series, literally pissing on an alien sacred tree, all because he was so stupid that he brought his dog on a diplomatic mission...

Like Chuck, I absolutely loath Archer, and all for the same reasons Chuck has listed over the years, as far as I'm concerned the only continuity error in Discovery is the fact that Archer made it into the top 5 Starfleet Captains, when I first saw that I actually laughed out loud, and learning that when he asked his father what he should do if he failed, his father told him "just don't" explains every one of his dumbass decisions, I've finally got to watch the first episode of Lower Decks, and one of the many things I love about it is that the characters don't act stupid or incompetent, think about that... the characters in a comedy series... that is set on the least important ship in the fleet... about Ensigns that either are just starting their careers, still learning, or have personally failings that are holding them back... are more competent, smarter, and likable... than Jonathan Archer!

Enterprise would have been better of if Sterling Archer was in the Captains Chair instead.

[CharlesPhipps]

If Porthos died, Archer would have been justified enacting General Order 15.

Dogs>Aliens.

[Taurian Patriot]

... as far as I'm concerned the only continuity error in Discovery is the fact that Archer made it into the top 5 Starfleet Captains, when I first saw that I actually laughed out loud...

Besides the fact he made the list, let's consider the others on there, and the fact that Starfleet apparently went over eighty years without any exceptional captains before four of them show up in rapid succession.

Of course this is because the writers couldn't be bothered to throw in some original names along with the fanservice, but the in-universe implications are too hilarious to ignore. Either every captain during that period was even more comically inept than Archer, or his disastrous mission made Starfleet put a hold on serious exploration until they had a few decades to unravel everything he did wrong and draw up policies for future captains.

And oh man, the sacred tree. Archer letting his dog pee on it was a boneheaded mistake, but an innocent one. Archer getting pissy about the locals' displeasure is absolutely inexcusable. You just don't roll into a foreign land and start disrespecting their culture. That's not even professional space diplomacy; it's basic decency.

(Though I agree that Porthos is worthy of vengeance. I was honestly a little annoyed at the Abrams movie when Scotty makes a crack about testing a long-range transport on Admiral Archer's beagle and it never rematerialized. Make fun of the man, but don't take it out on his dog.)

[FaxModem1]

I think Archer's whole thing is that he was in the right place at the right time. Because he gave a favorable first impression to the Andorians, and the Vulcans were rather sporting about exposing their spy base, Archer(and indeed humanity) was deemed neutral, giving everyone the view that humans will be neutral, no matter how potentially harmful it might be to them or their allies.

I bet P'jem is a footnote in Federation history, but being there to help mediate the treaty between the Andorians and the Vulcans, or between the Tellarites and the Andorians, and working towards making the foundation of the Federation through the Coalition of Planets, Archer would be viewed as great, if only because he did that. Someone who worked towards something, succeeded, and will be viewed as great because of it.

If I invented Flubber, and brought about a new era of transportation, almost free energy, and flying cars, and was also the man who started several diplomatic incidents, I'd still be known as the man who invented flubber and brought about a post-scarcity energy civilization. History would probably forget about all of those, and I'd only be known for making flubber.

I think the same applies with Captain Archer and his founding of the Federation.

[Linkara]

To be more complimentary to Archer, it's that the show recognized his character flaws later on in seasons 3 and 4 - broke him so they could fix him again and make him into the kind of character he needed to be to help found the Federation. Season 4 Archer is quite a bit removed from season 1 Archer and if the show had continued, we might have had someone who was just going through growing pains, like season 1 Picard vs. season 7.

[Link8909]

To be more complimentary to Archer, it's that the show recognized his character flaws later on in seasons 3 and 4 - broke him so they could fix him again and make him into the kind of character he needed to be to help found the Federation. Season 4 Archer is quite a bit removed from season 1 Archer and if the show had continued, we might have had someone who was just going through growing pains, like season 1 Picard vs. season 7.

That's fair, while Star Trek Enterprise is my least favorite series, I do wish it wasn't cancelled, there was so much more they could have done not just for Archer, but for the series as a whole.