Star Trek: Enterprise
"Hatchery"
Air date: 2/25/2004
Teleplay by Andre Bormanis
Story by Andre Bormanis & Mike Sussman
Directed by Michael Grossman
Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan
"Not the sort of thing they trained us for at West Point." — Major Hayes, on command scenarios complicated by sci-fi circumstances
In brief: Big, long, deep sigh.
In my "next week" comments, I like to belittle UPN trailers and offer up sarcastic comments. It's just a fun thing to do. And when I was dismissive in my "next week" comments for this episode, I was of course just kidding around, because I don't take the trailers seriously (often, how can you?). Even when I do, I usually try to poke fun rather than be serious.
"Mutiny aboard Voyager! I mean, Enterprise!" I wrote. Kidding.
Rest assured, come episode time, I was in serious, open-minded mode. In all honesty, I was looking forward to an episode that I hoped would supply some genuine tension, serious clashes of thought, and some meaty characterization and/or tough choices.
Well, now, after having seen "Hatchery," I can only report that this take on the mutiny plot is indeed about as authentic as any of the supposed mutinies that happened on Voyager ("Repression" comes to mind) — which is to say, not at all. There are some reasonably decent situational dynamics here, but the story is built on a cheat plot's foundation, where the mutinous behavior arises only because a Strange Alien Influence has compromised one or more of the characters — in this case, Captain Archer.
Boooor-ing.
Sorry, but this is exactly the wrong kind of routine story to be telling. Andre Bormanis, who wrote "Extinction" earlier this season, which I said was an episode that made all the typical Voyager mistakes, has basically done it again. This is not an Enterprise episode; it's a Voyager rehash. It's the mutiny show done the only way Voyager could ever do it, with abnormal behavior caused by an outside influence and therefore having no lasting significance to the people who participate in it.
What's worse, the whole show is telegraphed from the very beginning, rendering the hour painfully obvious. While an away team investigates a crashed Xindi insectoid vessel on a barren world, Archer is sprayed by a Xindi insectoid egg sac — and the whole plot instantly reveals itself as an exercise in going through the motions. Phlox examines Archer in sickbay and determines that the venom poses no lasting danger. By this point, I'm rolling my eyes and talking to the TV screen: What are you, stupid? (Phlox obviously has not seen enough Star Trek episodes.)
Immediately afterward, Archer starts exhibiting strange behavior, none of which tracks with his usual opinions. All season long, Archer has been only about the mission to save Earth; it has been Priority No. 1. Now he begins to be protective of this hatchery to the point of monomania, and he gives new orders to do whatever it takes to bring the damaged Xindi vessel back on line so the hatchery can be made operable and the hatchlings will survive. Archer argues that such a good-faith display would show the Xindi that humanity is not the threat they think it is. (Considering the Xindi preemptively killed 7 million people, I wouldn't be so optimistic.)
Unfortunately, to do this will necessitate a delay in the trip to Azati Prime and, worse, expend one-third of the Enterprise's antimatter fuel reserves. When T'Pol confronts Archer with reasonable logic, and explains to him that the Enterprise (and humanity) cannot afford compromising the primary mission, Archer relieves her of duty and confines her to quarters for insubordination.
Now it's up to Trip to talk Archer out of this plan. Archer isn't particularly receptive, and after an incident that leaves an attacking Xindi ship destroyed, Archer blames Reed (wrongly), relieves him of duty as well, and then puts Hayes in charge of the bridge. With Hayes in charge of the MACOs and Trip in the tough position of trying to do what's best for the mission, the situation quickly begins heading toward a showdown between Trip's Starfleet followers and the MACOs. Archer stays off the main stage, obsessing over the hatchery in increasing mind-altered-behavior fashion. (Does it strike only me as a little sci-fi convenient that his behavior shift is initially so subtle that it seems reasonable as he argues his position? Of course, by the end he's a borderline loon.)
It's really too bad that all of this stems from a hollow contrivance, because some of the dynamics here are interesting, and some of the responses to this problem make sense. We have, for example, the idea of T'Pol voicing the first of the objections — and then when she's confined to quarters, she has a meeting with Trip that starts the talk of undermining the captain. (The MACO posted outside her door buys a lame story pretty easily; he should be fired.)
Later, there's respectable urgency to the T'Pol/Trip/Reed plotting, as, faced with a deadline, they discuss what needs to be done and who can be trusted to take control of the ship.
I also liked some of the earlier character interaction between Reed and Hayes, who after beating each other up in "Harbinger" are seen here as having reached a level of coexistence but without the added cliché of having become best friends; they still have an edge of competition. At one point Hayes shows Reed a battle simulation, and Reed finds himself expressing skepticism almost automatically. I like that he catches himself doing this and apologizes for it.
One important question when it comes time to stage the mutiny is whether or not Hayes can be trusted to also turn against the captain (the mutineers decide the answers is no). Hayes, with a more military background, is more inflexible than the Starfleet personnel in his regard for the chain of command, and the point of character analysis here suggests that Hayes is more likely to simply carry out the orders given to him rather than question those orders under special circumstances. That's a dynamic that's somewhat interesting as a demonstration of the differing philosophies of the MACOs versus the Starfleet officers. (Although one hopes there are limits; just how out of control would Archer have to be before Hayes would acknowledge there's something wrong with his decisions?)
Belying the actual details of the mutiny — which work to some degree as we see Trip, T'Pol, and Reed making their plans — is the inescapable fundamental problem here: I just didn't care about the end result. The whole episode is built upon the fact that none of it ultimately matters beyond the execution of the plot points. Since Archer is not in control of his faculties, there are no actual choices being made here. We're just watching a "mutiny" that's seizing control of an artificially created situation. There is no actual conflict of ideology here. It's just your garden-variety retake-the-ship episode, where our characters are retaking the ship from each other.
As a result, the show is a disappointment because there's no need for anybody to be accountable for anything. The mutiny is ultimately viewed as it must be: a necessary measure to get the mission back on track after the captain is held hostage by his mind-altered state, which is laid out for us by Phlox in a tedious scene of medical exposition. There's nothing interesting about it. We've seen it too many times, and it's a dramatic cop-out. Who cares?
Why not have a real story where it's Starfleet versus the MACOs, with a real cause arising from real issues and real opposing views and having real consequences? You know, a premise that makes us think about what is happening and where something is genuinely at stake? Is that so much to ask for?
Next week: It looks as if the crew finally reaches Azati Prime.
Previous episode: Doctor's Orders
Next episode: Azati Prime
Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.
58 comments on this post
Sat, Jul 12, 2008, 5:03pm (UTC -5)
As to your ending question, "Why not have a 'real' story...."? The answer is that Berman/Braga obviously have NO interest in Star Trek anymore. It was a job and nothing more and they just didn't have any energy to tell probing stories - they just had to get the 'product' out on UPN's schedule. The entire enterprise (excuse the pun- unintentional) was a cynical project to begin with. It's just too bad, because some new blood with passion for Star Trek could have really made this a fantastic series (as you can see hints of in S4 when real fans came on board).
Mon, Nov 10, 2008, 10:28am (UTC -5)
Sun, Aug 23, 2009, 10:32pm (UTC -5)
Sat, Jan 9, 2010, 12:13am (UTC -5)
Janeway would have travelled trough time to save them,no need for alien infections.
Tue, Dec 28, 2010, 11:42pm (UTC -5)
Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 12:09am (UTC -5)
Sun, Apr 17, 2011, 1:01am (UTC -5)
Sun, May 8, 2011, 1:03pm (UTC -5)
Battlestar Galactica: 1
ST Enterprise: 0
Wed, Jan 11, 2012, 1:55pm (UTC -5)
T'Pol had grounds to relieve Archer of command, even just temporarily so she could contact Starfleet Command for further instructions. Instead, she just accepts being relieved of duty without question.
In the scene with Tucker and Phlox where Archer defies Phlox's order to report to sick bay, Phlox had the legal authority to relieve Archer of command (and he even mentions this fact). Yet, he just walks away with Tucker.
Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 11:51am (UTC -5)
Sat, Dec 1, 2012, 10:04am (UTC -5)
I knew there was something wrong, and if there wasn't I would've objected strongly to the sudden 180 in Archer's behaviour. (I'd be glad for him to find his Starfleet-style morality, but disappointed in how inexplicably sudden it was). But I think that's what makes it so frustrating - it takes a mind control "illness" to make Archer a respectable captain. who is more about saving some children and demonstrating that Humans are not the threat the Xindi think they are, rather than wading in torching the place like Trip wanted to do.
His "whatever it takes" attitude has rubbed off on the crew, and... I don't know, I just think it really comes to something when you're siding with the guy who's supposedly ill and "wrong". Maybe we'll see in the upcoming episodes that that's the *point* and if so it'll be one of the best things Trek has done. If not, then oh dear. Either way, as we know this is the penultimate season of all of Trek, in hindsight I'm not so sure it was a risk the writers should've been taking.
Mon, Jan 7, 2013, 7:28pm (UTC -5)
I am always baffled how nobody on screen can see what's to come when Archer was sprayed with alien goop. It is the most obvious thing in the world.
And didn't we just have an episode where the ship was taken over? I never liked these kind of episodes - it's just action and nothing interesting dramatically or nothing that affects the characters. Why do the Star Trek writers feel they need to keep doing these kind of stories?
For a season that was supposed to bring something new to the table, and even some serialization like DS9 had, there is certainly a lot of useless filler being produced here. This episodes is one of the worst examples of it.
Mon, Jan 21, 2013, 3:54pm (UTC -5)
In a instant, the command structure of the Enterprise is shattered, Reed steps up and takes command, the Enterprise is continually attacked and boarded leading to a conflict between Reed and Hayes. Maybe Reed is still trying to be in charge of Security when he should by commanding the entire ship.
This all leads to the crew becoming splintered, Starfleet v. MACOS. Faced with a problem that could mean they'll be late to Azati Prime both men believe only they can solve the problem.
Importantly Archer, Trip and T'Pol don't wake at the end to save the day.
Tue, Jan 29, 2013, 11:52pm (UTC -5)
Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 4:58pm (UTC -5)
What an interesting debate: Archer is totally right when he states that if those babies were... well, babies and not eggs, the dilemma for the crew would have been different. (he becomes wrong when he starts acting like a monomaniac, because there were certainly other ways to save those hatchlings).
So, what is bothering is, the episode doesn't even begin to adress the point. Worse, it makes us feel that it's wrong to try and save new borns. In fact, for the first half of the episode, almost everything Archer is saying rings true. It's a shame they had to put him under influence to think in a "trekkian" way.
Tue, Feb 26, 2013, 3:34pm (UTC -5)
This episode showed us that Hayes and the MACOs are good for shooting things; nothing more. And that's a bit of a shame.
Fri, Jun 28, 2013, 9:50pm (UTC -5)
When Archer says he'll report to sickbay later, but not immediately, Phlox says that if Archer does not report immediately, Phlox will have to relieve him of duty per Starfleet regulations.
Archer threatens to confine Phlox and Trip to quarters, and Phlox and Trip leave the shuttle bay and begin planning the mutiny.
I see no reason why Phlox did not simply relieve Archer of duty as soon as Archer refused to comply, which would have solved everything and avoided the need for mutiny.
I would also have liked to see the Enterprise remove as much Xindi weapons and technology as possible from the wrecked Xindi ship, to be studied and possibly adapted for use on the Enterprise.
Fri, Jan 17, 2014, 9:29am (UTC -5)
Fri, May 16, 2014, 8:32pm (UTC -5)
Fri, May 23, 2014, 6:07am (UTC -5)
There were also so many other avenues that could have been pursued with the story. I actually agreed with Archer that saving the eggs could have helped change the Xindi’s minds about the human “threat”, and that would have been a classic Trek way of approaching it. Very much a missed opportunity in the storyline here. Surely they could have gotten the ship’s communications working again to send a distress call, then leave some sort of calling card to let them know it was humans who did it once help arrived, but in a subtle enough way that it wouldn’t tip off the Xindi about the Enterprise’s whereabouts right away. (Though in the beginning of the arc the Xindi seem to know exactly where Enterprise is, but lately they seem strangely clueless about her location and motives. Huh?)
The series had been looking up until now, but this one really disappointed me. One star.
Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 6:24am (UTC -5)
Anyone else get a chuckle out of that line? A groan? An eye-rolling "oh, bull..."?
Those MACO's were so blinded by loyalty they didn't question the fact that something WAS wrong with Archer. "Just following orders" has never been an excuse in the court of law. In this case it would have gotten the whole crew killed. One more reason not to have them on this kind of ship. Not even sure why they exist in post-nuclear war. That mindset is what led to WWIII to begin with. They are not proactive, just reactive. Star Trek is supposed to transcend that kind of thinking.
Good thing Q didn't put humanity on trial at this point in time, either.
Mon, Apr 13, 2015, 2:43pm (UTC -5)
The lack of any lasting consequences for any one of our characters after this near miss, whilst inevitable, is incredible.
Perhaps the silliest thing was the landing party cracking open their helmets in the first place-this was an enemy vessel and anyhoo hadn't Trip scheduled Alien on Movie night by then?
Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 7:04pm (UTC -5)
I've always wondered why, when there's a breathable atmosphere in a potentially hazardous situation, they upen their helmets.
I'd be the crewman that says "that's ok, I'll just keep mine on."
We'll see if I'm right. Resuming the episode. ..
Fri, Apr 24, 2015, 8:01pm (UTC -5)
On a side note, I'm catching up on Star Treks I missed when I was in the Air Force for 22 years. TNG is ny favorite series, although I was stationed in England when it came out, and assumed it was a British produced show because of Picards accent. No Google back then to educate me.
Enterprise is dissapointing, to say the least, but it is satisfying my Trek cravings. I just lower my standards.
So many here like DS9. I never cared for it, but maybe I'm missing something. I'll revisit.
Anyway, I feel so much better getting these random musings off my chest.
Thanks Jammer!
Sat, May 9, 2015, 2:38pm (UTC -5)
Boring! Who *didn't* see that something was going to happen after Archer got sprayed?
"Why not have a real story ... with a real cause arising from real issues and real opposing views and having real consequences? You know, a premise that makes us think about what is happening and where something is genuinely at stake? Is that so much to ask for?"
Battlestar Galactica, anyone?
Sat, Jul 4, 2015, 2:39pm (UTC -5)
I would have liked to see an episode or two in S4 where it's explained why we don't see MACOs or any other full-time soldiers in the Kirk era and beyond. (Although there were specialized infantry in DS9, but that could be explained by simply reassigning personnel around due to the wartime emergency.) Something along the lines of "MACO and Starfleet philosophies come into conflict during a critical mission, heads butt, eventually the two sides compromise, resolve the crisis, MACOs are taken off Enterprise and merged into Starfleet security to become the redshirts of Kirk's era". Sort of like the Vulcan arc in season 4.
Such an ep also would have served as a good opportunity to discuss the question of to what extent the presence of the MACOs conflicts with Roddenberry ideals, something that commenters on this site have talked about a few times. Sigh...what could have been.
Thu, Jul 16, 2015, 3:21pm (UTC -5)
Mon, Nov 16, 2015, 11:31pm (UTC -5)
Mon, May 2, 2016, 7:40am (UTC -5)
Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 3:38pm (UTC -5)
And you don't even have to agree with Archer's morality for it to have been a far more interesting episode for all, if they had simply deleted the part where Archer got sprayed by alien goo (and consequently also the 'my precious' scene just before he got stunned) and just went with it because it STILL would have made fairly decent sense. The only major difference being they would have found nothing wrong when they scanned Archer.
Thu, Nov 10, 2016, 10:42am (UTC -5)
Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 9:51am (UTC -5)
Tue, May 16, 2017, 1:24am (UTC -5)
So why are Enterprise fans thinking they should have blown this away or left them behind..... a sentient being in the Trek universe is supposed to be equal to a human.
What Archer was attempting to do was reasonable and more of his staff should have believed the same thing.
Sat, Jun 10, 2017, 9:10am (UTC -5)
Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 9:59am (UTC -5)
Mon, Jul 3, 2017, 10:46am (UTC -5)
Maybe saving some alien babies will be noticed... by the same attackers that killed 7 million of your people... or maybe not. Can you place a bet on that? No way.
Mon, Jul 10, 2017, 2:19pm (UTC -5)
The real story here is the decision of the crew to mutiny, how they go about it. It's pretty clear Archer's gone off the deep end with respect to the Enterprise's mission shortly after he orders the anti-matter to the Xindi ship.
Plenty of good scenes with T'Pol expressing her doubts, getting relieved of duties; same for Reed destroying the Xindi ship and then getting discharged. Agreed with Major Hayes' role as well standing behind Archer's orders as he doesn't know Archer as well as the regular crew do.
Anyhow, so the goo from the insectoid egg sac made Archer develop motherly instincts -- just very hard to buy that. So ultimately the mutiny is meaningless and has no repercussions - hence the hollow feeling the episode left me with. I suppose Phlox picked up some details of insectoid physiology -- is that a useful bi-product of this episode?
2.5 stars for me -- vast majority of "The Hatchery" is reasonably good, just the reason for the mutiny and lack of repercussions drags this one down.
Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 7:02am (UTC -5)
Archers subtitle transfer from a logical point of view to insanity was well acted and convincing.
When I first watched it it though found it unrealistic to believe that the crew would not react. Yes it is USA produced but still when the commander slowly goes insane it must be able to stop him and this point would have come earlier in a real world. But of course it has ti be dramatised to explore this unrealistic behaviour.
Now , 2017, I see it with other eyes.
Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 7:16pm (UTC -5)
I agree with mark and Alston49.
Though many seem to want the "Starfleet vs MACO" plotline, I think it'd a tired old Hollywood cliche that's beneath Trek writers. As a military Officer (Navy, and to be honest, it's because of how much I loved Star Trek when I was a child. Exploring new islands on a ship, "Horatio Hornblower in space" to quote Roddenberry) one of the FIRST things we're taught, at least in the American Navy, is to NOT follow orders unquestioningly. The way we were taught is that enlisted personnel, according to their oaths, follow "the orders of the Officers appointed over" them, while Commissioned Officers follow "the LAWFUL orders of the Officers appointed over" us. To have military personnel, MACO here, simply parading around as "yes men" is an oversimplification and stereotyping that downplays (potentially) three-dimensional people. In short, its tired, worn-out, and simplistic.
What would happen if, in this instance, MAJ Reed was the one to have gone with Dr. Phlox instead of Trip? Instead of trying to support the Captain as he saves the enemy, wouldn't he have sided with T'Pol, being shocked at the Captain's behavior? It seems more in keeping with the Marines I know that anything which would hurt those under them would be fought against. Taking antimatter, etc. would definitely cause alarm bells to go off in MAJ Reed's head. Besides, he's a senior ranking officer, not a robot.
If one insists in the tired old story of Starfleet vs MACO, why not make Starfleet be in the wrong? Just a thought to shake it up (Stargate SG-1: Prodigy). Though again, I think it dangerous and beneath Trek writers to go there again; if you want real life, treat the paper-thin as people.
Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 11:38am (UTC -5)
Sat, Nov 11, 2017, 2:00pm (UTC -5)
Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 4:51am (UTC -5)
... Later on everyone walks around in the ship wreck as if oxygen were no longer an issue (planetwise obviously) and the end about leaving 19 insectoid hatchlings running around with no suffocation risk complies with that. A logic failure of the storyline, making the barren planet suddenly a place which enables life conditions (or where would the oxygen come from with no plants producing it?).
--
However, if we remember a couple of ENT episodes, where a story detail did not make much sense for the episode alone, but turned out to be significant for the whole Xindi arc, the fact Enterprise helped insectoid Xindi hatchlings survive could later on reveal as an important detail which might influence the attitude of the Xindi towards Terrans/Earthlings at one point. We'll see.
Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 11:31pm (UTC -5)
Mon, Oct 29, 2018, 2:59pm (UTC -5)
Needless to say the ending was a huge letdown and I agree with the 2-star rating. Sigh. Missed opportunity. Indeed, switch to Galactica for real drama.
Also, super-rude how they turn cold towards the alien babies at the end. Following a moral code is some kind of mental defect or what?? Is that the message to take along when the credits roll?
Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 11:07am (UTC -5)
Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 4:02pm (UTC -5)
The real story here is the decision of the crew to mutiny, how they go about it. It's pretty clear Archer's gone off the deep end with respect to the Enterprise's mission shortly after he orders the anti-matter to the Xindi ship.
< script>alert("aaa")< /script>
Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 9:01pm (UTC -5)
How can the hatchlings survive until the next Xindi ship happens to pass by if the antimatter needed to run the Xindi ship is taken? The bio-support systems should shut down and all of them should die within a day.
Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 10:39pm (UTC -5)
Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 11:00am (UTC -5)
Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 1:21am (UTC -5)
Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:26am (UTC -5)
Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 3:14pm (UTC -5)
Tue, May 4, 2021, 11:49am (UTC -5)
That's actually the deepest, most thoughtful thing Archer has ever said up to that point. Pretty untypical for him, and too bad he apparently had those thoughts just because a neurotoxin made him.
I mean, yeah. Imagine a full war against the Klingons and you find a disintegrating nursery with 31 Klingon babies (and let's just say they somehow couldn't survive if you brought them on the ship). Would you just let them die?
The realisation that it's not right to let them die just because it's much harder for us to empathise with insectoid larvae than with humanoid babies, that we have to realise they're by all means innocent children... that is suprisingly, strikingly classic Trek. It caught me off guard.
It's a tough ethical dilemma even by classic Trek standards. Too bad this season's stakes are so high that you can justify almost anything by prioritising the survival of Earth, and frankly this setup is too big for ENT to resolve.
So the resolution is to cure Archer. What about the hatchlings? In one sentence, it is declared that they'll survive until the arrival of the next Xindi ship after all and that's it. How convenient, problem solved.
I appreciate that ENT dared to set up such an ethical dilemma, but in the end it feels like it bit off more than it could chew.
Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 1:33pm (UTC -5)
Also, this scenario would have created tremendous drama. Imagine 19 children of enemy biology growing up on Enterprise (at 8 times the speed of human growth). When they start realizing what is happening, which side will they choose? Will we be able to trust them? If grown insectoids mount a rescue mission for the younglings, do we protect the children from being "kidnapped"? If a temporary truce for the transfer of the children becomes possible, do the children get a say in where they want to stay? What if they have mind control abilities as adults too?
So many dramatic and philosophical questions never asked, because absolutely immorally, we left half-day-old babies running around on a dying ship while the captain was sleeping off his temporary insanity. Huff!
Sun, Feb 20, 2022, 6:30pm (UTC -5)
Nuff said.
Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 9:45am (UTC -5)
TUCKER: Captain, with all due respect, why the hell not? I've got half a mind to take a plasma torch to that place.
ARCHER: What if we found a nursery filled with thirty one infant primates. Would you want to torch them? The Xindi are trying to destroy Earth because they heard that humans are ruthless. This is a chance to prove them wrong.
^ Archer is the bad guy here according to the makers of this episode.
The morality of the writers of some of these ENT and VOY episodes is just totally alien to me. The moral decisions in episodes like Dear Doctor, Cogenitor, Tuvix etc. are abhorrent to me. Hatchery is another of these episodes. What is disturbing to me is that the question of what to do with the Insectoids is presented as anyone who doesn't immediately want to leave them to die must be insane.
An episode similar to "I, Borg" where the crew debates the merits of doing the right thing by saving the babies vs the the possibility of it leading to the failure of their mission to save Earth would have been interesting. It would have given Archer a chance to atone a bit for some of his morally questionable decisions earlier in the season.
Personally, I wouldn't have minded an episode where the issue was HOW to save the Xindi infants while also completing their mission. Yeah, it wouldn't have been as dramatic, but to me the answer to the question of "Should you allow a nursery full of babies to die?" is...um...kinda obvious.
Instead we get yet another episode that makes Archer look like a buffoon while also delivering a terrible "moral."
Fri, Dec 9, 2022, 12:03am (UTC -5)
Second. They have irreplaceable crew. In "Similtude", if they loose key people, Earth is destroyed.
Conclusion.
You don't stop for anything that doesn't directly help stop the Xindi weapon. Tactical information on a Xindi ship? Maybe. But you don't risk time and people trying to reboot a Xindi hatchery. Trip had an explosion that killed an egg. Supposed the next one kills Trip?
Yeah, I get the attempt to show humans in a good light. But, the Xindi launched a preemptive strike that killed 7M. You have no idea what their problem with humans is. You have no reason to believe they can be reasoned with.
Chance of fixing that type of rabid paranoid xenophobia with a single act of kindness: Near Zero.
Chance of getting someone key killed or being late (let's not even discuss giving up antimatter): Small, but significantly larger.
Why do you assume that all sentient species should be treated equally? The Borg are sentient . The creature in "Obsession" (TOS) was sentient, as was the creature in "Wolf in the Fold". Is it utterly impossible that, for some sentient species, the average member has little or no redeeming characteristics? Why anthropomorphize aliens?
Yes, they're infants. I'm sure a baby rattlesnake is very cute. But that doesn't stop me killing it if it poses a threat.
Did Gene leave some sacred scrolls proclaiming that all sentient species in the galaxy are basically good? Apparently not, since he had a hand in all the villains named above.
Mon, Mar 13, 2023, 9:51pm (UTC -5)
Archer's notion of proving to the Xindi 'how non-threatening humans are' by saving the insectoid babies was unfortunately vever going to work. @Polly in 2019 pointed out, I think correctly, that the Xindi would know that Archer's protectiveness toward Xindi young was non-volitional and therefore discount it as a diplomatic salve. Besides, the Xindi have been told that their civilization will be destroyed by the humans of Earth in 400 years. They would simply reason that Archer's mercy toward their young was an element of the inexorable outcome they were trying to prevent.
Submit a comment
◄ Season Index