A Look at Archer

[Beastro]

Female heroes who act like men rarely work. I am not saying that is a good thing, but it is true. Which is why the majority of female action heroes who make it big are also sexy.

The two big female action heroes to me are Ellen Ripley and Sarah Conner and they are not sexy.

Not saying anything about their looks, but they are portrayed far more in keeping with how women are in their strengths and how human they are.

[Link8909]

There's a thing I find somewhat disturbing in the review. I dunno if Chuck realizes it or if I remember the situation wrong, but time was kinda running out on the entire Xindi-thing. The result of Archer failing wouldn't have been "We now know how not to do it and will do better next time!", but rather "There is no next time for the human species!". There was nothing to learn from failing the Xindi-mission other than complete and utter obliteration of the species.

I fail to see the reason in arguing over morals and moral high-ground, when the fail-state is non-existence. In fact, I find it highly justified to use amoral means, to ensure survival of the human species and I'd be utterly disgusted by the Captain of our only chance turning around, shruging and telling me: "I'm sorry, I hit a dead end and my only way forward was fucking with one of the enemy's scientists, but I decided against doing that, because it compromises on our ideals. It was nice seeing you from space, now have fun dying to a weapon that is very likely capable of cutting Earth in half. Byebye, enjoy the spectacle!". I'd make it a damn point to hunt that fucker down before the Xindi superweapon reaches Earth and kill him myself. Very slowly and in a very agonizing way.

Ok, two things

1. we're talking about a highly contrived piece of fiction. A paper-thin excuse on the writer's part to justify a certain kind of action, and the idea that someone who would choose to do otherwise would be giving up, rather than trying to get what they need without resorting to such measures, is maybe not a fair assessment of the alternative.

2. the idea that you would spend the twilight of humankind's existence exacting cruel, bloody vengeance on someone who simply didn't fight hard enough, is just... Well, all I can think to say is: what a waste.

Indeed, as King Arthur said in the film Camelot:

"Revenge, the most worthless of causes."

[Link8909]

I think the "Never Fail" statement is given undo attention.

Because Archer fails all the time.

As Chuck pointed out in his look at Archer, this explains Archers behaviour throughout Star Trek Enterprise, as far as Archer is concerned he is always right and never really questions his own decisions, never willing to admit to making a bad call or taking responsibility for his actions, it's everyone else thats wrong, which leads him to being portrayed as this arrogant and pigheaded dumbass who fumbles across the galaxy causing more harm than good, and things only working out for him because the writers say so and keep trying to tell us that this racist prick is the best of humanity and can do no wrong.

As you can tell, much like Chuck, I have a very low opinion on Archer.

[Link8909]

In some ways there's more you can do with a character who's rather naive like that - no-one would've thought Sisko would hesitate if he was in that situation and thought it was necessary, which to be honest would be a bit less dramatic.

One thing often overlooked with the whole "do whatever is necessary" thing is the judgement as to whether it is necessary. Wimping out and saying "it never is" (which some Trek writers have done from time to time) is a cop-out, the writer contriving events to fit, but heros who resort to that often get too easy a pass for it. Was it necessary? Was there a less unpleasant but harder option? Where do you draw the line - behave much worse for just what better chance of success?

I feel our characters should look for a different way out, but not find always. Have them get an easy out then it an ass pull, it a balance.

Indeed, I like heroes that try to find a better way, especially in Star Trek in which they will try to find a peaceful way, it's what separates heroes like Superman from "heroes" like The Elite, and why Section 31 is a great foil to Starfleet, who use the last resort as the first response.

Even Captain Sisko tried to legitimately convince the Romulans to join the Dominion War in "The Pale Moonlight" before he went down the road he did, which brings me to another point, if the hero has to make a moral grey or outright moral wrong decision and do what is necessary, show that there really is no other choice and that their decision will haunt them or even change them, much like with Captain Sisko, or Archer in "Damage".

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

I think the "Never Fail" statement is given undo attention.

Because Archer fails all the time.

It gets a lot of attention because it's a damn fool thing to tell a child. If taken seriously, it means they don't take risks, they don't learn, they don't grow, and ultimately, they will rationalize away their failures. It's just about the worst advice you could give short of "those silica gel packets are actually very tasty".

[CharlesPhipps]

I think the "Never Fail" statement is given undo attention.

Because Archer fails all the time.

It gets a lot of attention because it's a damn fool thing to tell a child. If taken seriously, it means they don't take risks, they don't learn, they don't grow, and ultimately, they will rationalize away their failures. It's just about the worst advice you could give short of "those silica gel packets are actually very tasty".

In like the ten years since it was Mad Max, humans have "evolved" past failure.

[J!!]

I think the "Never Fail" statement is given undo attention.

Because Archer fails all the time.

It gets a lot of attention because it's a damn fool thing to tell a child. If taken seriously, it means they don't take risks, they don't learn, they don't grow, and ultimately, they will rationalize away their failures. It's just about the worst advice you could give short of "those silica gel packets are actually very tasty".

nah. teach a boy that failure is unacceptable, teach him to never own up to his mistakes, teach him to deny responsibility and avoid consequences for his actions, and that kid'll grow up to be president someday.

[Link8909]

It gets a lot of attention because it's a damn fool thing to tell a child. If taken seriously, it means they don't take risks, they don't learn, they don't grow, and ultimately, they will rationalize away their failures. It's just about the worst advice you could give short of "those silica gel packets are actually very tasty".

Indeed, it's just as bad as Man of Steels Pa Kent's advice of never use your powers to help others, even if it's a drowning bus full of kids.

nah. teach a boy that failure is unacceptable, teach him to never own up to his mistakes, teach him to deny responsibility and avoid consequences for his actions, and that kid'll grow up to be president someday.

Oh God, I checked Archer's biography and it says that he did become President of the Federation:



(Sigh) F[RED ALERT]g Archer.

[TGLS]

Eh don't worry. In the early 2300s, someone wrote "A People's History of the Federation" where they blasted Archer as a bumbling, anti-Vulcan, idiot.

[GreyICE]

Eh don't worry. In the early 2300s, someone wrote "A People's History of the Federation" where they blasted Archer as a bumbling, anti-Vulcan, idiot.

Oh, so a rare positive review that minimized his worst qualities.