Photo

Should T'pol and Archer ended up together instead of T'pol and Tripp?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Dione

Dione

    Slan

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14,674 posts

Posted 20 August 2007 - 03:54 PM

Personally, I like Tripp, but T'pol and ARcher together seemed to make so much more sense; they've worked together on close missions, eat together at dinner, they've traded animosities about the Vulcan/humans.
Posted Image
May the stars carry your sadness away, May the flowers fill your heart with beauty, May hope forever wipe away your tears, And, above all, may silence make you strong.

#2 MarduKKK

MarduKKK

    Sleestak

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 95 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 09:27 AM

No!!!!! T'Pol should end up with me! But, can't have everything.

At beginning of series, I was sure Tripp and T'Pol will be together - they argued too much. Although, later there were episodes Archer and T'Pol were too close, but I didn't like that idea. I didn't like him too much. He wasn't worthy of baring rank of captain of Enterprise.
"Some people never go crazy,
What truly horrible lives they
must liveĒ.

Posted Image

#3 asearcher

asearcher

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 12:49 PM

I hope you guys don't mind, but I'd really like NOT to have this forum turn into a "Shipper's" forum. Things can be said about the relationships on both sides. All of us have our own cup of tea we like. There are other forums out there for "Shipper" action. Knowing that people take their own bias in this matter seriously, getting into flame wars about it, I really DON'T want to go there.

For instance, the person above me obviously disliked the character of Captain Archer

QUOTE
At beginning of series, I was sure Tripp and T'Pol will be together - they argued too much. Although, later there were episodes Archer and T'Pol were too close, but I didn't like that idea. I didn't like him too much. He wasn't worthy of baring rank of captain of Enterprise.


That's fine. I had a totally DIFFERENT take on it, feeling from the start that Archer and T'Pol might have something going between them although from a storyline, it would have been better if NObody was having those types of relationships. Think about it. Those types of relationships are highly discouraged on Naval vessels (closest thing to deep space vessels that we have at present) although I'm sure that they sometimes happen with people out at sea for that long. The same thing would be expected of people on a mission going out into the stars.

But, to address the fact that people do put those types of relationships in (including the writers, unfortunately,) I personally LOVED the role of Captain Archer. He was the most real to me (I've said it before (this is my POV...others may have different opinions)...Kirk was a Skirt Chaser, Picard was way too stuffy...Sisco was too wrapped up in his own importance...and Janeway was just too cold.) I liked Archer because being the first out there, he had to make major mistakes, change his viewpoints radically, and overall still be a great commanding officer. I feel the character truly grew during the short time ENT was on the air (that's another ball of wax though.) Archer had a depth of character that is wondrous to delve into. The role covered everything from humor to drama to deep angst. Bakula, IMO, played the character wonderfully, pulling things out that made Archer 'real' and not just a cut out figure. Again, my opinion, you're entitled to your own.

As to Archer/T'Pol vs Trip/T'Pol...much of what was written was due to one of the writers having an obsession over Connor Trinneer. That writer eventually had to be removed entirely from the project. So be it. Personnally, I felt the characters of Archer/T'Pol had a better chance of hitting it off long term than Trip/T'Pol. The person above me says...they knew it would be the latter because of the arguing that went on between them. I've been married 29 years now (which in this day in age is like forever) and thus I know that (even though my spouse and I argue from time to time) the things that make a long term relationship work are respect, trust, mutual interests (not in everything...but there has to be some there), and a personality fit. Trip/T'Pol may have had the "opposites attract" type of energy, but that tends to burn out over time, like gasoline poured on a flame. For sustainability, you need something more like an underground coal fire that can take over a century to burn out. In that you may not see the flames, but it is fed by a density of fuel rather than a flash in the pan situation. My personal take is that Archer/T'Pol had the things that would allow them to have a very long, satisfying relationship that was not just based on sexual energy but on the types of ties that hold two people together. Sex is great, but eventually, if that's all there is, it doesn't USUALLY last. Even looking at E2, probably the best part of that relationship was that Trip died when Lorian was 12. Twelve years is a long time...but looking back, it was still relatively early in the relationship (especially where Vulcan's are concerned.)

Now...again, I make the plea of a mostly 'shipper free zone.' I'd hate this forum to turn into a shout fest.
asearcher

"Captain's Log, 2000 and something..."

"Fruitcakes," Jimmy Buffett, Fruitcakes

#4 MarduKKK

MarduKKK

    Sleestak

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 95 posts

Posted 24 August 2007 - 06:14 PM

QUOTE (asearcher @ Aug 24 2007, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I personally LOVED the role of Captain Archer. He was the most real to me (I've said it before (this is my POV...others may have different opinions)...Kirk was a Skirt Chaser, Picard was way too stuffy...Sisco was too wrapped up in his own importance...and Janeway was just too cold.) I liked Archer because being the first out there, he had to make major mistakes, change his viewpoints radically, and overall still be a great commanding officer. I feel the character truly grew during the short time ENT was on the air (that's another ball of wax though.)


Well, I have different opinion about ST captains but it's not for this thread.
Best Star Trek Captain?


QUOTE (asearcher @ Aug 24 2007, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Personnally, I felt the characters of Archer/T'Pol had a better chance of hitting it off long term than Trip/T'Pol. The person above me says...they knew it would be the latter because of the arguing that went on between them. I've been married 29 years now (which in this day in age is like forever) and thus I know that (even though my spouse and I argue from time to time) the things that make a long term relationship work are respect, trust, mutual interests (not in everything...but there has to be some there), and a personality fit. Trip/T'Pol may have had the "opposites attract" type of energy, but that tends to burn out over time, like gasoline poured on a flame.


I agree with you that things that make a long term relationship work are respect, trust and a personality fit in real life, but I was talking about the show and writers of television shows often make up their stories about some characters that have love/hate relationship. They put them on the opposite sides at the beginning, make up some tension between them through the show and then try to do everything how they could finally end up together.
"Some people never go crazy,
What truly horrible lives they
must liveĒ.

Posted Image

#5 asearcher

asearcher

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 25 August 2007 - 12:40 PM

QUOTE
Well, I have different opinion about ST captains but it's not for this thread.


Which I noted was likely. We all have different opinions. Doesn't mean any of us are absolutely right or wrong. I have my cup of tea...you have yours. Everyone on the planet has theirs. Some of us prefer the same tea and not always for the same reasons.


QUOTE
writers of television shows often make up their stories about some characters that have love/hate relationship. They put them on the opposite sides at the beginning, make up some tension between them through the show and then try to do everything how they could finally end up together.


Which actually was my point. Just because a writer "made it happen" doesn't mean it was the best situation or made any sense at all. I tend to like storylines that somewhat fit reality in a sense. Even in Sci Fi there's only so much 'suspension of belief' (and YES...I understand this is willing suspension of belief. IMO the willing is an unnecessary added word...I have to be WILLING to suspend belief to watch in the first place) that one can take before throwing up your hands and saying, "this is ridiculous...I'm watching something else."

Again...I don't want to get into the discussion about 'who should be with who.' Those types are arguments are polarizing and often heated. They harken back to the 'cup of tea' argument. I'd prefer just to agree to disagree about 'ships' and 'favorite characters' rather than beat each other over the head as to who's right and who's wrong.
asearcher

"Captain's Log, 2000 and something..."

"Fruitcakes," Jimmy Buffett, Fruitcakes

#6 archersangel

archersangel

    Slan

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 15,271 posts

Posted 25 August 2007 - 01:16 PM

archer & t'pol was the obvious way to go. in a "captain gets the girl" sort of way. i didn't like trip & t'pol together, but at least it was a surprise. if anyone should've got together, it should've been trip & hoshi. IMHO

#7 robjkay

robjkay

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 166 posts

Posted 26 August 2007 - 12:29 PM

QUOTE (asearcher @ Aug 24 2007, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But, to address the fact that people do put those types of relationships in (including the writers, unfortunately,) I personally LOVED the role of Captain Archer. He was the most real to me (I've said it before (this is my POV...others may have different opinions)...Kirk was a Skirt Chaser, Picard was way too stuffy...Sisco was too wrapped up in his own importance...and Janeway was just too cold.) I liked Archer because being the first out there, he had to make major mistakes, change his viewpoints radically, and overall still be a great commanding officer. I feel the character truly grew during the short time ENT was on the air (that's another ball of wax though.) Archer had a depth of character that is wondrous to delve into. The role covered everything from humor to drama to deep angst. Bakula, IMO, played the character wonderfully, pulling things out that made Archer 'real' and not just a cut out figure. Again, my opinion, you're entitled to your own.


Oh please Scott Bakula played Archer terribly, Bakula was so bad that the majority of the time he acted like he had to **** or that someone else did and that he was trying to figure out who ripped out a silent but deadly ****. Don't get me wrong I normally like Bakula but he should not have been the Cpt. on Enterprise.

Hey who ******?

#8 robjkay

robjkay

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 166 posts

Posted 26 August 2007 - 12:33 PM

QUOTE (MarduKKK @ Aug 24 2007, 06:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well, I have different opinion about ST captains but it's not for this thread.
Best Star Trek Captain?


Yeah I noticed that nobody liked Archer!

#9 asearcher

asearcher

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 27 August 2007 - 01:29 AM

Ok...so in 'most' people's book I have a poor opinion. So be it. I still loved the Archer character and I loved the way that Bakula played him. I never got you **** attitude in ANY of the episodes. I found the portrayal real and very profound.

But again. That is my opinion and ripping me or anyone else apart for having that opinion is useless. The fact that one person likes Darjelling and the other likes Green Tea doesn't make either tea bad or the like for them wrong. I let you have your opinion and I don't step on it. I'd like the same consideration please.
asearcher

"Captain's Log, 2000 and something..."

"Fruitcakes," Jimmy Buffett, Fruitcakes

#10 -Deleted

-Deleted

    Superhero

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,141 posts

Posted 27 August 2007 - 06:29 AM

No.

#11 robjkay

robjkay

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 166 posts

Posted 09 September 2007 - 06:03 PM

QUOTE (asearcher @ Aug 27 2007, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ok...so in 'most' people's book I have a poor opinion. So be it. I still loved the Archer character and I loved the way that Bakula played him. I never got you **** attitude in ANY of the episodes. I found the portrayal real and very profound.

But again. That is my opinion and ripping me or anyone else apart for having that opinion is useless. The fact that one person likes Darjelling and the other likes Green Tea doesn't make either tea bad or the like for them wrong. I let you have your opinion and I don't step on it. I'd like the same consideration please.


Let me say this again, ok? Scott Bakula played Archer terribly, Bakula was so bad that the majority of the time he acted like he had to pass gas or that someone else did and that he was trying to figure out who ripped out a silent but deadly *art. Don't get me wrong I normally like Bakula but he should not have been the Cpt. on Enterprise.

So in the end your opinion is poor and that I find it extremly funny that you thought Scott Bakula acting was portrayed real and was very profound... LoL How can someone who seem to have an extreme case of gas in every episode be portrayed real and profound? LoL, LoL, LoL

PS: What does bad acting/passing gas have to do with Darjelling & Green Tea?

#12 Topospar

Topospar

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 179 posts

Posted 09 September 2007 - 07:25 PM

I liked Scott Bakula as the Captain simply because, IMO, he seemed to fit the part as a human being!!

I couldn't see him, as the Captain, having a relationship with T'Pol because they reminded me too much of a brother and a sister!!
www.myspace.com/nelliezimmerman

www.xanga.com/Stanelle

And

"Think..outside..the..box!"

#13 Sandy

Sandy

    Caprican

  • Full Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 09 September 2007 - 08:12 PM

I think that the actors might have felt there was more chemistry between Archer and T'Pol than with Trip, but in the end what the audience sees is not always what is perceived on set. Most of the fans I've met and chatted with love the Trip and T'Pol relationship. I thought Jolene and Connor had outstanding onscreen chemistry beginning in Season One...and B and B mentioned that on the Broken Bow commentary. Even Manny didn't put an end to the relationship as a whole...just deepened it for the audience in Seasons Three and Four. There may be some that prefer the other pairing, but as someone else stated: it's all a matter of preference.

And I'm not too concerned with this becoming a shippy forum. Actually, it's better to have a thread that out-and-out identifies itself as a ship thread and confine all discussions to it instead of having shippy comments pop up in random threads. To try and ban any talk of shipping is childish since it was an element of the series. It's like saying there can't be any threads criticizing Archer or Trip or talking about the special effects.

I was a little dismayed reading the previous poster's comments about a writer's fascination with Connor Trinner though. Are you talking about B and B? If so, they were asked to leave for more reasons than a fondess for CT. The way that comment was written makes it sound stalkerish. Was it another writer...perhaps in Season One or Two (IMO the most Tripcentric seasons)?

#14 poundpuppy29

poundpuppy29

    Contactee

  • Full Members
  • PipPip
  • 728 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 01:23 AM

I am a Trip & T'Pol shipper but I have a ship and let ship philosophy it's TnT in my AU you can have what ever you want in your AU.

SyfylogofinalIRRH2.jpg

FSFC2450150.jpg

Syfybanner1.png

poundpuppy29 AKA Erika My Fav Scifi/Fantasy Stuff, My Sports Teams & My Fav Sitcom


#15 asearcher

asearcher

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 04:45 PM

QUOTE
Let me say this again, ok? Scott Bakula played Archer terribly, Bakula was so bad that the majority of the time he acted like he had to pass gas or that someone else did and that he was trying to figure out who ripped out a silent but deadly *art. Don't get me wrong I normally like Bakula but he should not have been the Cpt. on Enterprise.

So in the end your opinion is poor and that I find it extremly funny that you thought Scott Bakula acting was portrayed real and was very profound... LoL How can someone who seem to have an extreme case of gas in every episode be portrayed real and profound? LoL, LoL, LoL

PS: What does bad acting/passing gas have to do with Darjelling & Green Tea?


Okay, then I'll state this again...I accept that you disagree with me. That's fine. I accept that people have different opinions about things. However, I could jump back to the statement about 'bathroom' references by saying that such criticisms harken back to 9 year old sensibilities (trust me, as a former cub scout leader I can pretty much pinpoint those sensibilities to that age group)...but I won't. I tried to use an analogy of teas to point out preferences and opinions but it obviously went over your head.

Not EVERYONE saw Bakula's portrayal of Archer as bad. (btw...I went to that Best Captain Thread [which was not in the ENT forum...hence the reason I didn't even know it was there] and the opinions stated didn't really surprise me. After all, what we like and why as people can be vastly different. That's okay with me. However, it wouldn't be true to say that "nobody liked Archer" even in that thread, which I've finally put a post in.) It is my stated opinion that he portrayed the character extremely well and there are many people I've spoken with that have the same opinion. Does that make us right and you (and any others with an opposing opinion) wrong? No. Just that we see quite different things in the portrayal. The fact that at the 40th ST convention that Bakula's room was filled and no tomatoes (figuratively or real) were thrown speaks to that. However...by the same token, your stated opinion and reasons for that opinion do not make my (or others that might not agree with you) "opinion poor." It's just different than your own. However, since it is obvious that you believe that only your opinions are valid then we probably won't have a good baseline to discuss anything further. Agreement to disagree without trying to denigrate another person is a much better point to be at.

QUOTE
And I'm not too concerned with this becoming a shippy forum. Actually, it's better to have a thread that out-and-out identifies itself as a ship thread and confine all discussions to it instead of having shippy comments pop up in random threads. To try and ban any talk of shipping is childish since it was an element of the series. It's like saying there can't be any threads criticizing Archer or Trip or talking about the special effects.


Yeah...I get you. It's really too hard to try to stop the inevitable direction that such things go. I was just hoping that I wouldn't see it happening here. See the last sentence in my previous answer. Too many shippers are willing to 'fight to the death' that THEY are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG. It's just a show, for God's sake. And there are sooooo many shipper sites out there to have a conversations with people that agree with you rather than having a perfectly good place ruined by those who only see one side of the coin. One can choose their ship and then go to the multiple places to enjoy it. However, there are some I've spoken to that simply don't like ships at all. They don't see them (even in the storylines) and they prefer NOT to have to think about them. I was simply pointing out it would be nice to have a 'shipper neutral site.'

As to criticizing the show's other points, as long as it's understood that these are again opinions that people are speaking of, then I have no problem with it. Discussion of storyline merit is certainly enjoyable, just like critical discussion of literature or film is. Ultimately, though, whether something resonates with a person is due to personal preferences. For instance, I hate horror shows (for the most part), but I know people who love them. They may discuss the finer points ad nauseum, but in my opinion, it wouldn't matter (and we're back to the cup of tea argument again.)


QUOTE
I am a Trip & T'Pol shipper but I have a ship and let ship philosophy


I applaud that and agree with it. I wish more people felt that way. As a fanfic writer, I've mostly been in the A/T'P ship but I did write one story from the T/T'P ship that quite a few people from the T/T'P (and even some from the A/T'P) ship enjoyed. I would never say that someone elses preference was 'WRONG.' It may not be what I prefer, but hey, that's what makes IDIC such a cool philosophy.

Someone asked me WHY I wrote it. It was simply to see from the other side of the coin. As Aristotle stated, the sign of true intelligence is the ability to consider an idea without fully embracing it. I'd been slammed by some in the T/T'P ship and instead of shooting back with both barrels, instead decided to look at things from their perspective. Still prefer the other ship, but I don't slam others for not agreeing with me...in regards to ships OR captains.

QUOTE
I was a little dismayed reading the previous poster's comments about a writer's fascination with Connor Trinner though. Are you talking about B and B? If so, they were asked to leave for more reasons than a fondess for CT. The way that comment was written makes it sound stalkerish. Was it another writer...perhaps in Season One or Two (IMO the most Tripcentric seasons)?


No...actually the writer in question was asked to leave in the 4th season. My understanding is that it was rather stalkerish and that it reached a point where TPTB had to take drastic action. It was neither B or B. I prefer not to say more as the trusted source I heard it from would likely not like more said than that.

Also, I'd have to say, I didn't find season one to be Tripcentric at all. But again...that's back to opinions and I respect your right to yours.
asearcher

"Captain's Log, 2000 and something..."

"Fruitcakes," Jimmy Buffett, Fruitcakes

#16 RileyJ24

RileyJ24

    Peacekeeper

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 585 posts

Posted 21 November 2007 - 10:29 PM

My personal preference would have been no intimate relationships between senior members of command. I tend to enjoy shows more when the group of people develop strong bonds of friendship and a family atmosphere. More often than not, when an intimate relationship is introduced within two major players in a group, it is for cheap ratings. Sometimes not even making sense.

A relationship between Archer and TíPol while they were serving together would have been highly unprofessional since TíPol fell under Archerís command structure (IMO).

Since it was obvious that the writers were planning to bring TíPol together with someone on the ship, I was glad that they chose Trip. He is a bit feisty and tended to challenge TíPol. They were in many respects very different, but I sensed chemistry and eventually a deep connection.


Posted Image


#17 coralstar

coralstar

    Mansquito

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 24 November 2007 - 09:30 PM

Everyone doesn't have to get so defensive about the opinions of a TV show....relax people



Any way, I really like the idea of Tripp and T'Pol being together, The captain always gets the girl or at least has that potential no matter which series we are talking about. I think it's refreshing to see a chief engineer get the girl. Differences some times really do make the heart grow fonder and bickering shouldn't signify affection either way.

#18 brianshiro

brianshiro

    Sleestak

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 94 posts

Posted 24 November 2007 - 10:11 PM

QUOTE (asearcher @ Aug 24 2007, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But, to address the fact that people do put those types of relationships in (including the writers, unfortunately,) I personally LOVED the role of Captain Archer. He was the most real to me (I've said it before (this is my POV...others may have different opinions)...Kirk was a Skirt Chaser, Picard was way too stuffy...Sisco was too wrapped up in his own importance...and Janeway was just too cold.) I liked Archer because being the first out there, he had to make major mistakes, change his viewpoints radically, and overall still be a great commanding officer. I feel the character truly grew during the short time ENT was on the air (that's another ball of wax though.) Archer had a depth of character that is wondrous to delve into. The role covered everything from humor to drama to deep angst. Bakula, IMO, played the character wonderfully, pulling things out that made Archer 'real' and not just a cut out figure. Again, my opinion, you're entitled to your own.


Amen. You and I share the same view on Bakula as Archer. His character had the greatest depth of any Star Trek captain, which is saying a lot given Enterprise's short lifespan and sometimes poor writing.

As for T'pol and Tripp vs Archer, I don't know what the original poster was thinking. There is no way Archer would have relations with someone under his command. He even said so himself in the episode "Home" when he refers to his old relationship with Erika Hernandez. T'pol and Tripp as a "couple" was a great match, and I was disappointed to see it dropped so suddenly in season 4.

#19 The Memory

The Memory

    Wacky Professor

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

Posted 25 November 2007 - 12:55 PM

Forgive me for repeating if this has been said, but I didn't read all the posts.

T'pol and Tripp won't happen now...You obviously missed the last episode, He's dead.

As for T'pol and Archer, I didn't get a romantic feeling out of that, it was more of a brother-sister thing. I really think that this was the intent too, symbolizing the relationship between Vulcans and Humans. T'pol may have been twice Archers age, but in Vulcan terms she was equivalent to a teenager. I thought they portrayed the way they learned from eachother very well.
We have come to help. We are retribution and redemption. We are the mystery and the resolution. We are hope and fear. We are the many who walk as one. We are a memory.

The Memory's Webpage The Memory on Wiki The Memory on Myspace

In darkness we can not see, if the light is too bright we are blinded, therefor we must walk the grey and hope that we find our way.

#20 asearcher

asearcher

    Viper Pilot

  • Full Members
  • Pip
  • 114 posts

Posted 25 November 2007 - 03:12 PM

And that's the whole point about 'ships.' Different people will see different things in a show. Doesn't mean one is RIGHT and the other is WRONG.

I personally did see something beyond a 'brother-sister' relationship in Archer/T'Pol. Not all EROS relationships are the heavy duty 'romantic' love storyline. I definitely saw their relationship develop in MANY ways. Archer could be emotional (although he tended to keep that under check most of the time) and he could be quite logical. I believe that combination would be mostly compatible with Vulcan sensibilities, thus I could see the relationship evolving into a soulmates relationship, but only after they were both free to make that choice. I've seen (in human couples) that when a relationship is based on deep friendship, that the relationship tends to last the test of time. That is the main reason I can see an A/T'P relationship lasting.

As to Trip/T'Pol...that one was a stretch for me personally. I just didn't get the hot-headed Human and the cool-composed Vulcan having that type of relationship. To me, the relationship was forced in the writing. Even Jolene B. made the statement that she couldn't see her character developing a relationship with Trineer's character but that's how it was written, so that's how they played it. I know a lot of people liked it, but it just didn't grab my belief. I wish they'd never decided to go with such a storyline, but they did, so we have the canon reality that they did have at least some relationship of a sexual nature. Personally, the fact that she was in the midst of a Trellium addiction when she acts on her urges and then makes it clear that it was a one time thing says a lot. The aftermath of the situation is not pleasant for either of them. The 'bond' that suddenly appeared (during the Klingon Arc) seems to coincide with the creation of their child (who appears to be about 2-3 months in the Demons/Terra Prime episodes.) There is evidence by TATV that the bond ended, again, likely when the child died. I found the relationship between the Trip/T'Pol was problematic at best.

I agree that during the mission, it would NOT make sense that A/T'P would have any more than a close personal relationship (ala Kirk/Spock.) They are a team and the concept that Archer, as her commanding officer, would have a relationship with her would just be WRONG. Doesn't mean the tension isn't there (e.g. A Night in Sickbay for one but there were other scenes that showed his deep caring for T'Pol and scenes that showed hers for him.) After the mission completed, though, all bets are off. Home showed that under the situation where he WASN'T a commanding officer, things could happen. If there was any relationship between Archer and T'Pol (outside of that deep friendship) it would have been AFTER TATV (which...since Trip isn't a around at that point...means that any feelings she MAY have had toward Trip are certainly only an issue of memory.)

Again...these are just my thoughts. I don't say they are RIGHT and other ship ideas are wrong (e.g. other pairings or NO pairings at all.) They are just my opinions and certainly others will have theirs.
asearcher

"Captain's Log, 2000 and something..."

"Fruitcakes," Jimmy Buffett, Fruitcakes




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users