A Night in Sickbay

[Jimmy Bob]

[

Archer could of been a better man and apologized at the start

He could've, but that wasn't the point of the show. The point of the show is that the Enterprise's captain is human, normal and makes mistakes. (We all do.) Worse, we sometimes make mistakes and insist we haven't because we're unable to be objective. We also sometimes make mistakes and our pride refuses to allow us to apologize. Archer, like most heroes, has more pride than your typical flawed human.

Yeah. "Archer is so stupid and uncaptain-like" isn't really telling us anything, because the series is about an imperfect guy in way over his head (not anymore in season 4 though). There was one scene in Broken Bow that really captured it for me. When Archer is talking with that female Suliban, and she being more aware of the situation asks him what he intends to do and Archer answers in a rather innocent manner "We're just taking him home."

Plus, Archer changes. Plus there's also that thing with his role as a mythological founding father being probably slightly detached and altered from reality. Once something becomes "official" as in official narrative of Federation, things take on a more less-than-real tone. Archer's just a guy who drinks ice tea, wears a baseball cap and walks his dog - that's how heroes sometimes are.

 

[Brikar99]

Archer's just a guy who drinks ice tea, wears a baseball cap and walks his dog - that's how heroes sometimes are.

If only that was how he actually came across for the majority of this show. If Archer was written as an ordinary guy in extraordinary circumstances, it'd be fine.

Instead, as written and performed, Archer is often a whiny, obnoxious fool who stumbles into being revered. And that's just not interesting, or dramatically worthwhile.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

So just because the aliens have a different culture then humans they are "stupid" ?

We are an objective third-party. I think HR was indicating from Archer's perspective, they were stupid.

I didn't call the Kretassans "stupid." I was referring to my own frustration dealing with people who are narrow-minded in perspective, unsympathetic to whatever concern I'm trying to address, and uncooperative no matter how much I try to accommodate them. Frustration can often compel a person to think of such individuals as "idiots." I got the same vibe from Archer re his situation with the Kretassans.

Just taking a dog into deep space was IMHO cruel - its no different then a dog going onboard a submarine.

I love animals, but I agree with this. I think Archer was given a dog to seem even more human and normal.

I think it depends on the dog and his bond with his owner. Our dog's #1 wish, above food or warmth or security, is to be at my husband's side. No matter where, no matter the conditions, he is more content when they're together than when they are apart.

And I think Porthos is a nod to those sub skippers with dogs -- solitary men with heavy responsibilities who benefit from the presence and emotional connection of a companion animal.

 

[KimMH]

I agree that Archer taking Porthos to a planet they were unfamiliar with may have been short sighted but also may have illustrated the divide he was trying to cross - across the Trek series many other cultures have expressed puzzlement over humanity's thing with dogs/cats/pets.

Other than a simple plot device it was a good way to offend the Kretassians without actively offending them - it seems unfair because the offense - like eating coed in front of visitors was completely unintentional. It also shows the begining of Archer's diplomatic career.

I have always liked ANIS; especially because Archer comes across as anti-Kirk - a little less certain of how to conduct himself and shows his evolution which parallels the UFPs evolution in the quadrant; newcomers held in little account to pillars of the galactic community.

 

[gblews]

To me ANIS is like several season 1 and 2 episodes, not particularly bad, just infinitely forgettable. I do understand the folks who like the episode, though. I mean, I like "Bound" for some of the same reasons many like ANIS.

I do think the episode did some damage to ENT, though it certainly was not the cause of the cancellation. At a point where so much of the fandom was criticizing our captain character, Archer, here came an episode which the critics could argue showed him making decisions which showed a lack of common sense (not 'common sense' for a captain, just common sense), and then made him look ridiculous in paying penance for his cultural faux pas.

The writers at that point, clueless as ever (or simply uncaring) as to what the fans were saying, presented an episode which gave the fan critics that much more ammunition. Had ANIS come along in season 5 or 6, after we had seen much more of Archer, who knows, maybe most would see the episode more the way it was intended to be seen.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I do not think it was cruel at all for Archer to take Porthos into space. Unless it is also cruel for old ladies living in tiny apartments to have a dog they take out once a day for 15 minutes. The ship was big, he probably roamed or walked the corridors plenty. Lots of people and a social dog LOVES that. A devoted owner he sleeps next to who talks to him and looks to him for companionship. Really, it was a pretty good life.

 

[Admiral Shran]

To me ANIS is one of the better episodes which showcases Archer's development.

Here we had a series with a captain that was not polished by any stretch of the imagination. He certainly was no Kirk or Picard. But that was the point. Kirk didn't spring from the Academy as the hero we all encountered in TOS, no matter how much JJ Abrams wants him to be so. He had to grow as a human and as a commander before we ever met him. When we first saw him on TOS he was already a polished gem of a captain. The same thing happened with Picard. He had a long career in Starfleet before TNG ever started. He had spent years honing and developing his diplomatic and command skills before we ever met him. He even had to lose a starship to become the man we met. The same was true for Janeway and, to a lesser extent, Sisko, who did grow as a commander throughout DS9. However, with ENT, we started out with a captain who was completely "unprepared" for the job of commanding a starship. We had to watch him grow as a leader and as a man as the show went along.

By season four, I believe the growth was pretty much to where people expected it to be. He's now very much the typical "Star Trek captain," albight with his own quirks. However, for the first three seasons he was basically just a guy stumbling along in the dark and learning on the job. Episodes like ANIS show this perfectly, IMO.

Now, that all being said, I think there are two major problems with this aspect of the show. 1.) The writers inability, or lack of interest, in showing this development consistently. And, let's face it, it all is rather forgettable. 2.) Fans came to the series, from the beginning, expecting to see another captain in the mold they were used to and were upset when they didn't get that.

Would Kirk, Picard, Sisko, or Janeway have taken their pet on a diplomatic mission with a species known to be easily offended? Of course not. They know better because they have the training and/or experience that tells them not to. Would Archer do it? Of course he would, because he doesn't know any better at this point in his career.

Does this mean he's not a hero who would go on to be an utterly pivotal player in the founding of the Federation? No. It just shows that he wasn't born with the ability to do great, world-shaping things without even trying.

Earlier I said that someone like George Washington would probably seem deeply flawed if we actually met him. Well, I think that's true. Did you know that in the only time he commanded troops before being named as the Commander in Chief of the Continential Army he screwed his mission up so drastically that he basically started the French and Indian War? Does that failure mean he didn't go on to do world-shaping things? Of course not.

Damn, I'm really talking Archer up here. Oh well, those are my thoughts.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Now, that all being said, I think there are two major problems with this aspect of the show. 1.) The writers inability, or lack of interest, in showing this development consistently. And, let's face it, it all is rather forgettable. 2.) Fans came to the series, from the beginning, expecting to see another captain in the mold they were used to and were upset when they didn't get that.

You make good points here. I'm surprised that the writing staff didn't nurture their lead character more, and strive to demonstrate more effectively Archer's positive qualities even as we saw him learning as he went, and making mistakes along the way. And I liked the novelty of seeing a captain who wasn't all shiny and perfect from the get-go, but I can see how some viewers' expectations would not be met by this kind of Star Trek captain.

Damn, I'm really talking Archer up here.

He needs all the fans he can get, dude.

 

[JiNX-01]

To me ANIS is one of the better episodes which showcases Archer's development.

Here we had a series with a captain that was not polished by any stretch of the imagination. He certainly was no Kirk or Picard. But that was the point. Kirk didn't spring from the Academy as the hero we all encountered in TOS, no matter how much JJ Abrams wants him to be so. He had to grow as a human and as a commander before we ever met him. When we first saw him on TOS he was already a polished gem of a captain. The same thing happened with Picard. He had a long career in Starfleet before TNG ever started. He had spent years honing and developing his diplomatic and command skills before we ever met him. He even had to lose a starship to become the man we met. The same was true for Janeway and, to a lesser extent, Sisko, who did grow as a commander throughout DS9. However, with ENT, we started out with a captain who was completely "unprepared" for the job of commanding a starship. We had to watch him grow as a leader and as a man as the show went along.

By season four, I believe the growth was pretty much to where people expected it to be. He's now very much the typical "Star Trek captain," albight with his own quirks. However, for the first three seasons he was basically just a guy stumbling along in the dark and learning on the job. Episodes like ANIS show this perfectly, IMO.

Now, that all being said, I think there are two major problems with this aspect of the show. 1.) The writers inability, or lack of interest, in showing this development consistently. And, let's face it, it all is rather forgettable. 2.) Fans came to the series, from the beginning, expecting to see another captain in the mold they were used to and were upset when they didn't get that.

Would Kirk, Picard, Sisko, or Janeway have taken their pet on a diplomatic mission with a species known to be easily offended? Of course not. They know better because they have the training and/or experience that tells them not to. Would Archer do it? Of course he would, because he doesn't know any better at this point in his career.

Does this mean he's not a hero who would go on to be an utterly pivotal player in the founding of the Federation? No. It just shows that he wasn't born with the ability to do great, world-shaping things without even trying.

Earlier I said that someone like George Washington would probably seem deeply flawed if we actually met him. Well, I think that's true. Did you know that in the only time he commanded troops before being named as the Commander in Chief of the Continential Army he screwed his mission up so drastically that he basically started the French and Indian War? Does that failure mean he didn't go on to do world-shaping things? Of course not.

Damn, I'm really talking Archer up here. Oh well, those are my thoughts.

Here's the problem with your argument. Archer's conduct in this episode has NOTHING to do with experience or training or having thousands of first contacts under humanity's collective belt.

Forget the Kretassans' sensitivity to "rudeness" and "vulgarity." Nevermind their reaction to seeing humans eat together. Skip right over the whole cultural/social divide.

Even on Earth, you are expected to be a responsible pet owner. You don't bring your dog to visit even close relatives without their consent. There can be allergy issues, sanitation issues, they might simply not like animals.

Anyone with half a brain cell would realize that the genome of a dog doesn't tell the Kretassans WHAT A DOG IS, much less that it's inclined to pee on trees.

 

[Mach5]

Damn, I'm really talking Archer up here.

He needs all the fans he can get, dude.

Exactly. 163 fans simply isn't enough.

 

[Brikar99]

Here's the problem with your argument. Archer's conduct in this episode has NOTHING to do with experience or training or having thousands of first contacts under humanity's collective belt.

Forget the Kretassans' sensitivity to "rudeness" and "vulgarity." Nevermind their reaction to seeing humans eat together. Skip right over the whole cultural/social divide.

Even on Earth, you are expected to be a responsible pet owner. You don't bring your dog to visit even close relatives without their consent. There can be allergy issues, sanitation issues, they might simply not like animals.

Anyone with half a brain cell would realize that the genome of a dog doesn't tell the Kretassans WHAT A DOG IS, much less that it's inclined to pee on trees.

I agree completely. He doesn't come across as inexperienced in this episode, he's downright stupid, and when confronted with that stupidity, his response is immature. We get that he loves his dog. That much is obvious. But his behavior in this episode is just terrible.

I would love it if Archer had simply been inexperienced, a bit flawed. But he rarely comes across naturally on the show, partly because the writers had no concept of how to do that with him, and partly because, and this pains me, Scott Bakula's performance failed 95% of the time with this character.

I like Bakula. A lot. He's got a good presence, and charisma... but not when he was on 'Star Trek'.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I get the flawed captain thing. It's just it was never written consistently or appealingly. If he was across the board a misanthrope, or crusty codger or cowboy with an attitude it would have been pretty daring. But instead we get this very likable guy who suddenly comes out with lines like "You have no idea how much I'm restraining myself from knocking you on your ass", to T'Pol! It was always so jarring. Sometimes Archer is really reaching to understand the nuances of interstellar diplomacy and that's good stuff even if it comes across as naive. And sometimes it's just plain crude and boorish. Since the man is not crude and boorish normally it's painful to watch.

 

[seigezunt]

I get the flawed captain thing. It's just it was never written consistently or appealingly. If he was across the board a misanthrope, or crusty codger or cowboy with an attitude it would have been pretty daring. But instead we get this very likable guy who suddenly comes out with lines like "You have no idea how much I'm restraining myself from knocking you on your ass", to T'Pol! It was always so jarring. Sometimes Archer is really reaching to understand the nuances of interstellar diplomacy and that's good stuff even if it comes across as naive. And sometimes it's just plain crude and boorish. Since the man is not crude and boorish normally it's painful to watch.

Maybe he has a glandular problem. Or too much coffee.

Anyway, these comments are making me appreciate the episode in a new light. That is, dog owners are a little nutty when it comes to their pooches. When I was a news reporter over the years covering legal disputes and town meetings, I learned quickly that people lose all perspective when it comes to their pets and their children.

So it makes sense that Archer would lose it.

 

[JiNX-01]

I can understand people indulging their pets (I spoil my cat to the chagrin of my family) but Archer actually suggested that Porthos had some kind of right to go planetside for, IIRC, fresh air and a chance to run around.

The problem here is Archer was putting the welfare of 80 people (not to mention his Extremely Important Dog) at risk of being marooned in deep space.

When your chief engineer does his job, as captain you are supposed to do yours. And it doesn't involve a xeno-hostile attack on people you have insulted.

T'POL: You shouldn't have brought your dog on a diplomatic mission, especially considering we had previously offended the Kreetassans.
ARCHER: They knew we were bringing him. We even sent his genetic specs. They could have asked us to leave him behind. They didn't. Porthos has the right to a little fresh air.
T'POL: You're once again ignoring the consequences of your actions.
ARCHER: What's that supposed to mean?
T'POL: You obviously place more importance on the quality of the air your pet breathes than on the quality of the plasma that drives your ship.
ARCHER: What the hell does one have to do with the other? Isn't it logical I could care about my ship and my dog?
T'POL: I'm not questioning your pluralities. I'm questioning your priorities.
ARCHER: I really thought you were beginning to understand something about human feelings.
T'POL: Not when it pertains to primitive quadrupeds who haven't developed the ability to speak or to use a toilet.

 

[number6]

I can understand people indulging their pets (I spoil my cat to the chagrin of my family) but Archer actually suggested that Porthos had some kind of right to go planetside for, IIRC, fresh air and a chance to run around.

The problem here is Archer was putting the welfare of 80 people (not to mention his Extremely Important Dog) at risk of being marooned in deep space.

When your chief engineer does his job, as captain you are supposed to do yours. And it doesn't involve a xeno-hostile attack on people you have insulted.

T'POL: You shouldn't have brought your dog on a diplomatic mission, especially considering we had previously offended the Kreetassans.
ARCHER: They knew we were bringing him. We even sent his genetic specs. They could have asked us to leave him behind. They didn't. Porthos has the right to a little fresh air.
T'POL: You're once again ignoring the consequences of your actions.
ARCHER: What's that supposed to mean?
T'POL: You obviously place more importance on the quality of the air your pet breathes than on the quality of the plasma that drives your ship.
ARCHER: What the hell does one have to do with the other? Isn't it logical I could care about my ship and my dog?
T'POL: I'm not questioning your pluralities. I'm questioning your priorities.
ARCHER: I really thought you were beginning to understand something about human feelings.
T'POL: Not when it pertains to primitive quadrupeds who haven't developed the ability to speak or to use a toilet.

Um.. yeah. That was the point of the whole episode.

Acher learns a serious lesson in diplomacy in an otherwise light hearted episode.

 

[Brikar99]

Um.. yeah. That was the point of the whole episode.

Acher learns a serious lesson in diplomacy in an otherwise light hearted episode.

Which could easily have been done in a different manner that didn't further harm his already strained credibility as Captain.

 

[SgtPinback]

Just watched this for the first time. Don't quite get its bad reputation. I quite enjoyed it. But then I like Phlox.

Well, I really hate the episode "A Night In Sickbay," but your .slg does give me a great idea for a Doctor Who/ Deep Space Nine crossover in which IT'S A FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE! is written on the Mona Lisa's canvas in black felt-tip.

 

[number6]

Um.. yeah. That was the point of the whole episode.

Acher learns a serious lesson in diplomacy in an otherwise light hearted episode.

Which could easily have been done in a different manner that didn't further harm his already strained credibility as Captain.

There was nothing strained about it. He was the first Captain, the prototype. That was the point. This was a big stumble for him and he had to learn from it.

 

[JoeZhang]

Um.. yeah. That was the point of the whole episode.

Acher learns a serious lesson in diplomacy in an otherwise light hearted episode.

Which could easily have been done in a different manner that didn't further harm his already strained credibility as Captain.

There was nothing strained about it. He was the first Captain, the prototype. That was the point. This was a big stumble for him and he had to learn from it.

The lesson I got from the episode was that Star Fleet struggles to get quality people and has to sent idiots like archer into space.

 

[JiNX-01]

Um.. yeah. That was the point of the whole episode.

Acher learns a serious lesson in diplomacy in an otherwise light hearted episode.

Which could easily have been done in a different manner that didn't further harm his already strained credibility as Captain.

There was nothing strained about it. He was the first Captain, the prototype. That was the point. This was a big stumble for him and he had to learn from it.

OK, fine. For the defenders, let me say this: It was a stumble that should have occurred in season ONE. By now, he should be a lot better at this. He's always telling T'Pol to be open-minded to how humans think and feel, yet he trashes the social customs and practices of other species.

Honestly, what was SFC thinking when they named this petulant brat humanity's ambassador to the quadrant?