Solbor's Blood wrote:
The problem was, Scott had to have good writing in order to shine as Archer and couldn't rise above when he didn't get it. The same writers who wrote Archer also wrote Trip and Phloxx (and everyone else). But we saw Trinneer and Billingsley defeat bad characterizations with their natural, relaxed, and charismatic performances.
Neither Trip nor Phlox were mouthpieces the way that Archer was. They only needed to attend to their work and express their quirks. Archer was designed to be more than that, expressing the ambitions of humanity as well as the ideals that would emerge in TOS and the 24th century series.
So your point is that it was easier to write Trip and Phlox than Archer and therfore the Trip and Phlox roles were easier to act? My position is that the two actors made their roles look easier because of their abilities to create an maintain their characters' credibility no matter the scene.
But with regard to Scott, I maintain that his inability to establish Archer's dignity and/or charm, both staples of Trek captains, is what sank Archer's popularity. And the often heard, "Archer was written inconsistently", that always gets brought up, to me, is a crock. It shouldn't matter to an actor if one week his character is angry and the next, he is as happy as a clam.
You play the part you're given to the best of your abilities. This is I'm sure what he did, it just wasn't enough.
Imagine Nathan Fillion as Archer. He could have pulled off the boneheaded and undignified stuff Archer was asked to do in a way that would have left everyone still liking the character while acknowledging his shortcomings. This is where Scott failed.