I Just Rewatched ____ and Noticed ____

[JadziaKathryn]

Honestly, this sort of policy seems to me slightly intentional, as to say: Hey, look at me! I'm the hero! A so great hero that I don't hesitate to sacrifice myself on any possible occasion!

That's great, Asso! Funny, funny, but also a good point. Martyr complex, anyone?

Now, what would be interesting is if Archer felt he was likely to die and it should be him as penance, if you will, for all the things he did in the Expanse. Hmmm...

[Alelou]

Honestly, that's exactly how I interpreted it. Otherwise, it didn't make sense because Trip and Travis had already flown that thing once. Really, it should have been both of them again, or at least Travis.

[JadziaKathryn]

Yes, but at least they had a good reason for Trip to be elsewhere.

[Alelou]

Oh jeez, do I have to watch that again? What's the good reason, other than the usual being-chief-engineer thing? (Though of course there's also the only-person-who-would-nag-T'Pol-and-then-chase-her-through-the-corridors thing.)

[JadziaKathryn]

Trip and T'Pol were busy disabling the entire sphere network.

[Alelou]

Ah. I thought you were referring to when he took off in the Xindi shuttle to destroy the weapon the first time...

[hth2k]

Someone asked why must there be a hero? I think that depends on your definition of what a hero is. For me it is an ordinary person placed in extraordinary circumstances and rising to the occasion. Everyone has the potential but few are called and fewer respond and succeed. It is a large part of why most of us are interested with those who do extraordinary things.

I agree that if the writers had a clue they would have molded Archer somewhat differently. A mortal with ordinary abilities is far more interesting to me that an fake "superman" or contrived "hero". Sadly the way they wrote Archer failed the believibility test far too frequently. Combine that with plain stupidity/absurdity, and there you go.

Making mistakes is part of being human. Making mistakes in combat is guranteed. Being smart enough and lucky enough to adapt and recover may make the difference. Being able to force your enemy into making mistakes is a big part of it. They say no plan survives contact with the enemy.

Sending subordinates out to do the dirty work is how it works. Some infantry combat commanders lead from the front and this is a good thing. They don't usually do recon or stand sentry or man a forward LP. Doesn't mean that they may have not done that at another time in their career.

Archer is a ships Captain. His background is that of a test pilot as far as I know. He has experience and training in the flight characteristics of certain types of ships. He would also have a genralized knowledge of those ships systems. Likely he could likely do minimal repair or service on some of those systems with guidance. More likely his specialty would be to recognise certain failure modes and point those out to others. His specialty would be to take an unproven design and take it to specific performance parameters to verify the design. He may also help to establish proceedures for operation at various extreme areas of the envelope and departure scenarios if those apply here. As a Captain he would also have had leadership training and likely for this application diplomatic training. Selecting and sending people for hazardous or one way missions is part of the job, if he could not handle that he would not be given command.

HtH

[Alelou]

Okay, yeah, in the real world. But this is a TV show. You could argue that a real world scenario would be more interesting and believable. Maybe. If I'm a TV producer doing a prequel to TOS, I think I'll aim for something a little more Kirk-the-God and a little less Early-Picard-Opressed-by-My-First-Officer-and-the-Prime-Directive.

This doesn't excuse them from making him stupid.

[Asso]

Someone asked why must there be a hero?

That "someone" was me.
At this point I believe it's better I try to explain.
I love heroes, and - honestly - I'm too a little bit stereotyped about that.
I don't like the genders' mixture.
HERO: male (with all its side dish).
HEROINE: female (with the its own side dish).
Now... a hero is a man who acts as a hero, and , like all heroes, he's tragic, deeply human, great, weak, strong, sad, cheerful. And he doesn't search greatness: he already has that..
And he's ducky.
Well.
Archer? Mhhh...
Trip? YES!
And T'Pol? Is she a heroine?
I have told you I'm a little bit stereotyped.
Is she female? Yes.
Is she strong in the way women are? Yes.
Is she weak in the way women are? Yes.
Is she searching something beyond logic? Yes. Against her pathway itself.
She's a heroine.
Like, Hoshi, in her own way.
Like Malcolm.
Archer? I don't know.

[evcake]

"ducky?" Do you mean lucky, as in "lucky as James T. Kirk?"

I just rewatched Fallen Hero, a favorite of mine, and didn't so much notce anything as muse that one of the things I hold to ENT's credit is that it brought us portly Vulcans.

[Asso]

[evcake]

Actually, that's what I'd like my banner to say.
It would have Kov on the left side and V'Lar on the right, with one of those scenes of T'khut huge in the sky in the middle. And say something to the effect that "portly Vulcans rule."

Unfortunately, I lack the skills.

[Asso]

[CX]

I do not understand why Archer's tendency toward self-sacrifice in order to protect others is often (well, here, damn near always) interpreted as inflated egotism. There are instances (yo, "Observer Effect") where I don't hear people screeching about Archer doing the "I wanna be the hero" dance. His ookey compassion saved everyone in that instance.

That's because that's the one time it didn't come off as a contrived attempt to make him the awesome action hero captain. They could've gone further and actually established that the reason Archer insisted on going to begin with was because Trip at least used to be a close friend or something along those lines, but it still played off fairly well. But just because they did a decent job of it that time doesn't make every other Super!Archer! instant anywhere near as good.

If Archer had been the no-nonsense, impassive commander type who would have left Malcolm on the Xindi weapon in "Zero Hour," he would also have been the guy who would have dumped T'Pol on the nearest habitable planet at the end of "Impulse" so he could line his ship with trellium. Would've been quite a different show from that point on, eh?

Exactly. I've been saying for a long time now that T'Pol's character was assassinated time and again before they even got to the third season trellium nonsense. But the point is that TPTB shouldn't have been afraid to do things like that, as long as they applied themselves and did a good job of it, unlike pretty much every death they've ever done on Star Trek.

Honestly, that's exactly how I interpreted it. Otherwise, it didn't make sense because Trip and Travis had already flown that thing once. Really, it should have been both of them again, or at least Travis.

Exactly, and they could've gotten some use out of a character that they'd pretty much ignored since the very beginning of the first season, and if nothing else they could've had him go out with style. It's not like any other Ensign Anonymous couldn't have filled in from that point on had Travis ended up dying to save Earth. Or they could've given Hayes a much better death by having him stay behind to destroy the Xindi Death Star in Zero Hour.

Oh, and someone brought up TOS. I'll only say this - just because someone else screwed it up before does not excuse B&B from making the exact same mistake. If anything it makes them bigger idiots for not learning from the previous mistakes that others made. But then Braga prided himself for never having seen an episode of the original series.

[Elessar]

But then Braga prided himself for never having seen an episode of the original series.

Given how many episodes they just copied and did over again, I have a hard time believing him.