Judging by their actions

[Theunicornhunter 2]

There is a scene in DS9 where Kira is talking to Zyal (sp?) about Gul Dukat. Kira makes the statement you can't judge people by their feelings or wants or intentions but only by what they do.

 

Do you agree with that? How about in context of season three's character development?

 

I think the changes in Archer and T'Pol make an interesting contrast. Archer was extremely idealistic prior to this season and a man with a strong sense of right and wrong even if he wasn't always certain of how to express those ideals. Now, he was living a leader's worst nightmare. The fate of his entire species rested on his actions. As time went on the line between right and wrong began to blur; he did things he didn't want to do or believed to be wrong. Under Kira's definition we could say that Archer became a "bad" person. But Archer did what he had to do to save humanity. He was willing to live with his conscience in order to accomplish his mission. I think that took character, I know others will disagree on this point.

 

T'Pol was also a woman of strong sense of right and wrong. The Vulcan way was right the Human way was wrong and spared no effort in reminding Archer of this. Yet even in season one she was voluntarily experimenting with the very thing she criticized - emotions. Again, in season three she sought out emotional experiences. If she was a religious person not practicing what she preached she would be labeled a hypocrit. As a science officer she knew emotions would impair her ability but she was willing to risk the mission, the crew and the fate of humanity to gratify a desire.

 

Judging purely from actions - Archer's decisions to destroy the xindi listening post or to steal an alien ship's warp coil seem far more "evil" than taking drugs to experience physical/emotional pleasure. Archer would appear to be the one that "fell" this season.

 

However, in the light of intent the picture is different. Archer was not thinking of himself and was even willing to experience discomfort to benefit others. In contrast T'Pol thought only of herself and was willing to inconvenience others to fulfill her wants.

 

Please feel free to discuss whether intent matters or only actions? Or whether you saw the character's intent differently?

[TransporterMalfunction 1]

Well it could be argued that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, I have been and...(sorry over quoted <_< ).

 

Reguarding the change in Archer's character, I do like the fact that some of the overbearing morality that he had has gone and he has become a tough decision maker who is acting in the best interests of his race rather than worrying about others. The reason I like this is because we are seeing a character that is flawed and has yet to achieve the ability to sustain his ideals as shown in the shows set in the future, it highlights the differences not only in the characters but also the show itself room to build on.

[mj 7]

Please feel free to discuss whether intent matters or only actions? Or whether you saw the character's intent differently?

TUH, I think you made the case for including intent if you want to make an accurate judge of character. Intent leads action...Archer's morality moderated even the wrong things he did. His goal was to save humanity. He struggled not to lose his humanity as he made decisions against his personal morality and vision. He won that battle when at key times he still made choices to the benefit of other races in midst of his diffcult mission.

Reguarding the change in Archer's character, I do like the fact that some of the overbearing morality that he had has gone and he has become a tough decision maker who is acting in the best interests of his race rather than worrying about others.

TM, I disagree with the last piece of your statement. The new tougher Archer acted in the best interest of the human race while still caring about what happend to the other races.

Click for Spoiler:

He sent the Enterprise to destroy the spheres before he had completed his mission to destroy the weapon! He destroyed the prototype of the weapon, rather than let the Andorians keep it and threaten Vulcan. If he had truly become morally bankrupt, or even just selfish for the human race, he would have taken the Enterprise in pursuit of the weapon, and made the Aquatics wait for him to come back and deal with the sphere-builders.

Archer actually demonstrated the least selfish behavior among the races involved in this conflict: the Vulcans, the Xindi, the Andorians, the sphere-builders, and the humans.

[TransporterMalfunction 1]

What I was referring to was the fact that he places humanity number one. This season he had a job to do and no matter how dirty, or on occassions who got in the way, he had to do it leading to morality going out the window (or airlock) at times.

[Trinneergirl 0]

Three years into Enterprise and I honestly cannot think of one reason why Archer got the job of Captain.

 

 

Minor Spoilers for all Series Three!!

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

 

For the first, whether the ship is an exploration vessel or trying to save Earth, the crew look to the Captain for leadership and morale. Archer was told this by Admiral Forrest in Shockwave but chose instead to carry on sulking. The entire crew of Enterprise were looking to Captain Archer throughout season three and he was consitantly useless. He never delegated, never asked for opinions or took them onboard when they were offered. There was only Archer's opinion, Archer's word. (Chosen Realm) Archer has to decide who dies, so Archer choses Archer so that Archer can go through the transporter and Archer can save the ship. (Azati Prime) Archer has to decide who takes the sucide mission to destroy the weapon, so Archer choses Archer to go, so that Archer can get captured and Archer can get tortured so that Archer can meet and win over Degra and Archer can get back. Archer is the first one to download the Xindi Database in Anomaly.

 

I found this tiresome and one dimensional. Why did the rest of them go into the Expanse? Archer is a better engineer than Trip, a better scientist than T'Pol, a better linguist than Hoshi, a better fighter and sharper shot than Reed and the MACO's :( And for virtually the whole season he had a face like a smacked bottom. He mooched around, sulking and glowering. So he had a mission to save Earth and Humanity. I would have thought that Twilight showed only too clearly that if he died T'Pol would assume that responsibilty, and if she too went Trip would take on the role. Twilight showed too that they would carry on without him very well. They ALL had the responsibility of the mission, Archer's job as Captain was to exude a confidence in himself and his crew so they could trust him and get their jobs done. He didn't. He gave out the message that they were doomed to failure and it permeated down the ranks.

 

Secondly, Archer is a very poor manager. He simply doesn't let his crew work as a team by his insistence that he decides everything. T'Pol is his first officer, Trip is the next highest ranked and the highest ranked Starfleet officer aboard. I cannot remember him getting them, let alone the other department heads together at any time to take onboard opinion. He dictated and brooked no other viewpoint than his own.

 

Thirdly, his diplomatic skills are useless. They always have been. I guess that is why we got Lwaxana Troi as a diplomat in the 24thC, she was a product of a long line of useless diplomats that started with Archer. You know, Jon, there are other way's of winning people over that are more successful that ranting and shouting?

 

Fourthly, the tantrums. I find it embarrassing the idea that this spoilt baby is supposed to represent our species. Stomping, ranting, sulking, throwing things, slamming things down. His insults to T'Pol. ('I don't need your damned, Vulcan sceptisism!). He is childish and lacking in the most basic conduct you'd expect from the Captain of a pleasure boat let alone the Captain of a starship that is meant to vangard Human relations with alien races.

 

Finally, he is a piss-poor friend. For me the best, most wonderful thing that got me hooked into Enterprise was the Archer/Trip friendship. It was so unique and so rare. Well, three years on Jon has well and truly crapped it away. He uses Trip's loyalty and friendship but never gives anything back. Even with Similitude he told T'Pol that if he didn't need Trip's Engineering experience in the Expanse he'd have let Trip die. And he effectively told Mayweather in Azati Prime that he was sorry he'd saved Trip's life. Even in the extremis of Countdown when Trip said 'good luck' Archer couldn't find a single nice word to say to his best friend, telling T'Pol to keep him in line like the Chief Engineer and Commander of Starfleet was some kind of bratty teen.

 

Frankly, I now despise the guy. :) The idea constantly pushed at us that there will be no Federation without this nasty, hypocritical, turd is hard to believe.

 

As for T'Pol her total incompetence in Azati Prime has left me with nothing but disgust and the fact that she has no consequences to face has sent out a message that it's okay to commit manslaughter while under the influence.

 

If it weren't for the ever dauntless, brave, caring Trip, played with such layered and textured brilliance by Connor Trinneer, I'd not be watching now, let alone series four.

 

I used to love Star Trek Enterprise.

Edited May 31, 2004 by Trinneergirl

[Jeanway 0]

WHOA!!!!! :) YOU'VE HAD IT IN FOR HIM FROM THE VERY BEGINNING

 

I can't and won't argue with any of your very, valid points. I won't even say BUT. I still like the guy. Ever hear of GESTALT? That was a very well thought out presentation you just made, very persuasive. Certainly shook me back into reality.

[mj 7]

Archer is my favorite character on Enterprise. His development over the three years is one of the most interesting aspects of the show.

 

The Archer/Trip relationship took a back seat to the Trip/T'pol thing in the third season.

 

I heard a lot complaints about Archer being weak and wimpy in the first two seasons. Now that he is written as a strong character, people complain about that.

 

I saw no evidence of his believing he was a better scientist than T'Pol, engineer than Trip, and so forth. But as captain he has to be informed about all aspects of what happens on his ship and has the final word. I think sending Trip and T'Pol and the rest of the Enterprise to handle the situation with the spheres is an example of delegating atuhority...

[Klingonmike 0]

Archer is a great Captain.he reminds me a bit of Capt.Kirk. I would certainly follow him into space if I had the chance!

[Trinneergirl 0]

WHOA!!!!! YOU'VE HAD IT IN FOR HIM FROM THE VERY BEGINNING

 

  I can't and won't argue with any of your very, valid points. I won't even say BUT. I still like the guy. Ever hear of GESTALT?  That was a very well thought out presentation you just made, very persuasive. Certainly shook me back into reality.

GESTALT, Jeanway? Doesn't that come with GESTPEPPER?

 

Seriously, sorry for going off on a rocket about his, people. (deep red blush!) I miss the Archer/Tucker friendship so much that I tend to dive in the deep end about it.

[chunderfish 0]

Mmmm interesting! And it's a fine balance we have to draw when judging anything along these lines. Archer's intent was clearly correct - the intent we all have should be faced with the same situation, to save humanity. But I feel that he became servant to that mission rather than pilot of it. His character suffered as a result - I mean from the viewer's perspective he became predicatable and tedious. He did get the job done however, and maybe that really is all that counts. Trinneergirl makes some very valid points about his utter disregard for the rest of the crew and his shouldering of the task to such an extent that there could be no other opinions, no other way to do it. So the intent was right and so was the outcome but I can't help feeling that I like him less now and that I lost respect for him as a leader.

 

T'Pol however had no intent to get hooked on trellium. We all know of the effects of addiction so perhaps she was incapable of having any intent other than to continue using once she was hooked. But I never felt sorry for her. Whatever her state of mind I think she always knew what she was doing was wrong and in her position had no excuse for keeping it quiet for so long. Phlox's action in keeping her condition secret is also unforgiveable - at some point the code of doctor/patient confidentiality breaks down and, for the sake of the mission and the rest of the crew, this was it. No doubt she will never have to answer for her actions because, as we all know, the writers only pursued this silly storyline in order to get some flesh exposed and now it looks like poor old Trip is stuck with her.

[Jeanway 0]

 

 

What I mean TG is that is you pick apart something, point by point, line by line { CJLP } you kind of lose the big picture, or the final result, or the whole enchilada, for looking at the smaller points or parts that made up the whole, understand? Some reactions or behaviors by themselves may mean one thing but combined with later reactions or behaviors changes thing in the end. I thought Archer was lot more complex than alot of people give him credit for being. He didn't get to be Captain by being simple minded and easy to read. Just think about that. Don't judge the Captain only by what you can see and hear. Ever hear of a 'Poker Face'?

[Odie 0]

 

 

What I mean TG is that is you pick apart something, point by point, line by line { CJLP } you kind of lose the big picture, or the final result, or the whole enchilada, for looking at the smaller points or parts that made up the whole, understand? Some reactions or behaviors by themselves may mean one thing but combined with later reactions or behaviors changes thing in the end. I thought Archer was  lot more complex than alot of people give him credit for being.  He didn't get to be Captain by being simple minded and easy to read. Just think about that.  Don't judge the Captain only by what you can see and hear. Ever hear of a 'Poker Face'?

Jeanway, I agree with you 100%.

[Admiral Kirk 1]

 

 

However, in the light of intent the picture is different.  Archer was not thinking of himself and was even willing to experience discomfort to benefit others.  In contrast T'Pol thought only of herself and was willing to inconvenience others to fulfill her wants.

 

Please feel free to discuss whether intent matters or only actions?  Or whether you saw the character's intent differently?

I had intended to start a post about T'Pol that would have said the exact thing . This is one of the reason I really don't like her character. The entire human race is on the line and she puts the mission in jeopardy to experiment with a dangerous drug to alleviate her personal medical problems. Phlox should have notified the Captain of this failure in judgement and her condition and she should have been removed from her position as first officer. She could have had a relapse at any time. At another time her behavior might have been more forgivable but not at that time and not on that mission.

Edited June 6, 2004 by Admiral Kirk

[Trinneergirl 0]

 

 

What I mean TG is that is you pick apart something, point by point, line by line { CJLP } you kind of lose the big picture, or the final result, or the whole enchilada, for looking at the smaller points or parts that made up the whole, understand? Some reactions or behaviors by themselves may mean one thing but combined with later reactions or behaviors changes thing in the end. I thought Archer was  lot more complex than alot of people give him credit for being.  He didn't get to be Captain by being simple minded and easy to read. Just think about that.  Don't judge the Captain only by what you can see and hear. Ever hear of a 'Poker Face'?

Jeanway, I agree with you 100%.

A lot of what you say makes sense Jeanway, but the changes wrought in Archer have all been to deny him any point to which I can admire him. I don't admire bullies just because they 'get the job done'. Many people in life get the job done without being bullies. Archer is a selfish, self-centred man. If he'd failed to save Earth would he, (like Trip in Twilight), have given his all to saving those who were left? From his behaviour in Shockwave, I'd say no. He'd just have gone on a monumental hissy-fit - as usual.

 

He isn't a complex character to me. While things are going his way he is amiable, the moment he has stress, or those around him don't kowtow to his every whim, he is cold, rejecting, dictatorial, pushy, sulky and in all things behaves like a spoilt baby. He is the only one allowed an opinion, he is the only one allowed to act.

 

I find him appalling. How this excuse ever got the job of Captain, except via Nepotism, I'll never know.

 

I watched Strange New World on Sky One this Monday past and am saddened to the extent to which Archer has become a narrow, arrogant facsimile, when he was a human being who once garnered my respect.

 

And I'll never for give him for the way he has treated Trip. I hate users.

[Jeanway 0]

" :P "

 

 

 

MAYBE HE JUST NEEDS A HUG :P

 

 

 

OR A PILL :P

 

 

 

 

LIGHTEN UP TG, LIFE'S TOO SHORT FOR THIS

Edited June 9, 2004 by Jeanway

[Mike 5]

I don't know Jeanway, TG's comments seem pretty much on target. Although I'm not that critical of Archer he did change this past season and I do see some of her points..Recently I've watched the first season of Enterprise too and he was totally different then..Perhaps we will see him go back to that somewhat next season..

[Jeanway 0]

Well, it wasn't Scott Bakula that we're talking about, was it? It was the character that the writers made him to be. Maybe his style of command doesn't appeal to everyone. He has to put his personal feelings aside sometimes for the good of the ship and it's mission. I don't remember being Captain meant you had to win a popularity contest. Just let the man act his part, it's all made up anyway, why is everyone so touchy about this anyway? Sorry, I've had a bad day. :P

[Theunicornhunter 2]

He'll never go back to being how he was before - if they write him that way then the writers truly don't understand people (well, they don't anyway so not a good point)

 

Archer has been through his refiner's fire. No one could handle the stress he's been under and not be cranky - most of us get cranky with much less stress.

 

I still like the depth Archer has shown - and sorry TG but I don't see him as selfish, really anything but. First you criticize him for sending himself on the suicide mission rather than sending another crewmember to their death and then you say he probably wouldn't risk his life to safe his crew?

 

And I feel sorry for him that he went on what he expected to be a one way mission not knowing he was leaving his ship, crew and the fate of humanity in the hands of the world's most incompetent First Officer.

 

I have a problem with the fact that he never asked T'Pol why she kept the ship there like a sitting duck rather than getting the ship to safety. She deserves a major chewing out by Archer - and unless that happens I'm really not interested in season four.

[fenriz275 0]

I think that by getting such strong reactions both positive and negative from viewers the writers are doing something right. If we were all hohum about what they write then Enterprise would really be a bad show.

[WEAREBORG4102 0]

t'pol had no logic she weighed the need of the one over the needs of a whole civilization.

 

Archer weighed the needs of the many over the needs of the few.

[Trinneergirl 0]

Well, it wasn't Scott Bakula that we're talking about, was it? It was the character that the writers made him to be. Maybe his style of command doesn't appeal to everyone. He has to put his personal feelings aside sometimes for the good of the ship and it's mission.  I don't remember being Captain meant you had to win a popularity contest. Just let the man act his part, it's all made up anyway, why is everyone so touchy about this anyway? Sorry, I've had a bad day. :o

Sorry you've had a bad day, Jeanway!

 

(one Startrekfans hug comin' your way! )

 

I don't blame Scott Bakula. He is a very good actor and, by all accounts a really first-class bloke. The sheer breadth of characters he played and the class he brought to the role of Sam Beckett was enough to cement my admiration for life. He isn't to blame for the way Archer has become, he is doing the best with what he's given. Unfortunately, IMO, he's been given a total waste of space.

 

No, a Captain of Starfleet doesn't have to win any popularity contests. But, in the real world, the lead character on a TV show does. Archer sent himself on two suicide missions in six shows, not because he was the best person to go, but because he didn't want to send anyone else to die. Unfortunately the first time, (Azati Prime), his decision cost Enterprise dear as he left a totally incomptetent T'Pol to sit there like a fish in barrel until the Xindi came along and knocked nine shades of s**t out of them, including eighteen lives lost.

 

I still like the depth Archer has shown - and sorry TG but I don't see him as selfish, really anything but. First you criticize him for sending himself on the suicide mission rather than sending another crewmember to their death and then you say he probably wouldn't risk his life to safe his crew?

 

TheUnicornHunter, you see from my above arguement that Archer was selfish in not sending another person on the suicide mission, (the first one - Azati Prime - too many sucide missions !) I didn't say he woudn't risk his life to save his crew, he would. But when he fails he has tendency, all too clear in Shockwave, to go off and sulk. He showed it too in Vox Sola, when Trip chivvied him out of his funk. Archer should be above that. Take, in contrast, Trip's mention in Countdown that he'd promised his engineering crew drinks at the 602 club when the Xindi weapon was destroyed, to thank them. Trip has faced terrible decisions and blows too but the message he's sending out to his people is 'we're going to make it. Earth is going to make it. I know what you guys have been through and done and I appreciate it, and you.' Archer's sour-faced glowering, in contrast, has sent out a morale crushing message to his crew all season.

 

I guess I do get all heavy on this! I didn't mean to bring anyone down!

 

It's just that I find myself left with the realisation that I despise both Archer and T'Pol now. At least Archer had all-consuming reasons for his behaviour. T'Pol as a character is so devoid of integrity, trustworthiness, truth, or anything remotely admirable that she is utterly bereft of worth.

 

I'll let it go now. Sorry to have banged on.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

It's okay TG, I actually enjoy finding someone that dislikes T'Pol as much as I do.

 

Actually, you are correct Archer does have a tendency to sulk, not one of his finer attributes (and it seasons 1 and 2 he almost had mulitple personality disorder because the writers were not consistent). One spoof somewhere refered to the window in his ready room as the "weight of the world window"

[Trinneergirl 0]

It's okay TG, I actually enjoy finding someone that dislikes T'Pol as much as I do.

 

  One spoof somewhere refered to the window in his ready room as the "weight of the world window" :blink:

I used to have so much warmth for the T'Pol character, even in her ice-(I'm trying to say a bad word but can't) days. But I couldn't reconcile her continuing on as First Officer after she resigned from the Vulcan High Command. If she'd moved over to become a Civilian Head of Science that would have been okay. But to see her still called Sub-Commander when she's chosen not to be one, to see her First Officer when she's not an officer, was and is just plain stupid. The only way I can find of making her amusing is to imagine her as the 'Horse of a different colour' from the film The Wizard of Oz. It at least explains the rainbow catsuit phenominon!

 

I've read your thread on Tippy's drug use on another list, TheUnicornHunter along with the usual, 'you just don't understand addiction' patronising foolishness you got back. These people who attempt to make excuses for addicts make my blood boil. Everyone in the free world has the luxury of choice. Those choices have consequences. An airline pilot who had years of reliable work would lose his license, never to regain it, if he was found to have flown a plane with excess alcohol in his system, let alone drugs. Indeed pilots sometimes have to end their careers because they are on legal, prescription drugs.

 

Archer ordered T'Pol to wait for an hour then move Enterprise. They all knew that when the station they destroyed turned into communications range, the Xindi would come and find out why it wasn't answering. T'Pol went into the ready room to fall apart and dismissed Trip who came to tell her that she should move the ship. Later he and Reed attempted to make her do something, even attacking Azati Prime as they understood time was of the essence. She did nothing useful and eventually had to be physically restrained by Trip from taking a shuttlecraft off on a suicide mission. In doing this both he and she were in the shuttlebay when the Xindi attacked, (attacked remember, because they found out that the station wasn't responding and went to check - just like the Enterprise knew they would), which lost them valuable time in responding to the threat. Then, while Enterprise was being knocked to bits she sat there like a lump!

 

Back in the first season, Enterprise was ordered to leave in Civilisation and T'Pol cleverly worked to make it look as if they were leaving, then she found a way to destroy the alien's vessel by transporting their own reactor off the planet and exploding it so the antimatter took out the alien vessel. Now, in season three, she us bereft of all ideas, behaving like a panicked idiot. And why? Because she chose, of her own free will to take a drug that she knew would affect her brain despite the fact that her brain is already affected by her Panarr syndrome. She took the decision to continue with the drug usage. She took they decision to accept command from Archer even though she was aware she was addicted. On the back of these dicisions 18 people died because she didn't move Enterprise like her Captain had ordered her to and her First Officer (Trip) had begged her to.

 

So poor little Tippy was 'overwhelmed' by her first contact with Trellium-D and 'wanted more' of the emotions. She didn't realise at first that she was becoming addicted. So what? The fact remains that once she was aware of the addiction, she didn't immediately take herself out of the Command chain, didn't immediately seek help. She chose instead to take the Captaincy offered by Archer and then behaved with such incompetence that the ship was very badly damaged and eighteen lives lost. That she hasn't ever come forward about it, that Phlox agreed to help cover it up, disgusts me. I find it awful that a Star Trek show can send out a message that it's okay to kill accidentally whilst on drugs, just get off them after and it's consequence free.

 

She should have been removed and Trip made First Officer, to show their are very real consequences to such poor judgement, specially when you have a job that requires you to be trustworthy and you fail that trust. For those who think that Trip couldn't be First Officer and Chief Engineer, by the end of Zero Hour he was First Officer, Chief Engineer and, apparently, Science Officer too and it didn't seem to phase him.

 

But, I do have to say, 'weight of the world window'! I love that! I liked how we saw Archer's quarters from about every angle and never saw a window there until Twilight when he required one to mention that he could see a lot from it! And Trip too had a window in his quarters the size of an elephant in Precious Cargo, but it couldn't be located at all in Cogenitor!!

[Red Shirt Volunteer 0]

First off, I think all the criticism and negativity about the characters is a credit to the actors who brought them to us. Whether we like them of not, at least they've given us something to talk about.

 

If T'Pol made the decision to use trellium-D of her own free will based on hearing that it might cause some interesting emotions, I would blame her. However, she was initially exposed in the course of her work and subsequently became addicted. First she was exposed on the Vulcan ship, at which time we discovered she, and all Vulcans, would have a strong reaction to it. She was then exposed again as Trip tried to use it to protect the ship, right? In effect, her addiction can be clearly connected to her duty on the ship. We wouldn't likely blame someone who got addicted to a substance if they were forced to experience its effects as part of their job; rather, we would likely see that person taking their company to court if they were not supported and also likely winning a large payment in my opinion. I don't agree at all with her decision to play with trellium-D, but I don't think we can completely blame her. I think Blalock did a good job this season in developing a character that showed both sides of this issue.

 

Bakula also added another dimension to Archer. I felt he was naive and one-dimensional at the beginning of the series, but has evolved into a more realistic portrayal of a leader. The situation he faced with the Xindi arc put him in circumstances often beyond his control that affected his decisions. He did get angry more frequently this season, but I think as a result of stress, not bad character. He gives his staff the freedom to make their own decisions, but this is also a responsibility they must fulfil. When they fail to, he lets them have it. I do this in my own job. You have to let people do their jobs to get the most out of them, but as the leader you also have to demand minimum standards be met and not pamper people when they fail to achieve them. I think we'll see Archer return to the way he once was to a degree (though I don't think he can ever fully go back, as TUH said) as the crew gets a little more leeway and a little less pressure in future missions.