View Single Post
Old October 29 2013, 08:22 PM   #87
Rear Admiral
gblews's Avatar
Location: So. Cal.
View gblews's Twitter Profile
Re: So what's with all the Archer hate?

Yanks wrote: View Post
I think it's the responsibility of the writers to write for the actors they have. They knew what they had, and Scott in his element is very good I think.
No, I don't think so. Some producers might choose to do that but it isn't etched in stone that they have to. In retrospect it would have been better fo Ent if they had written Archer in a way that would have been easier for for Scott to play. But looking back even further, if they had no desire to ever "customize" Archer, then Scott probably should never have been cast in the first place.
Solbor's Blood wrote: View Post
Having a character that lacked the complex backstory and purpose of Archer did not put Trinneer into a disadventageous situation. It helps an actor to have the room to put their own input into the character, to actually contribute to the process of characterization, as well as to let the character grow organically as stories evolve. That's not to say that Trip was uninteresting, but he had space to evolve and be himself. Too much was predetermined about Archer, and worse, he never was allowed to just be himself. He had to represent 100 years of disappointments that were not his own.
You're saying that our knowing too much about Archer somehow kept Scott from making Archer as good a character as Trinneer made Trip? Please explain. Just because we know a lot about a character doesn't keep an actor from making the most of the role.
Now, we've seen Bakula succeed in a roll in which he had much more leeway. On Quantum Leap, his character was forced to adapt to new situations and new personalities. He kept his moral core, but Beckett was never completely himself. That situation is much more analogous to Trip than to Archer. On the other hand, I've never seen Trinneer take on a roll as complex as Archer.
Please keep in mind that my argument isn't tthat Scott is not a good actor (not saying he is, or isn't). My point is that he was wrong for Archer.
Like Yanks writes, there are some things that Bakula doesn't do well. Archer was indignant a lot of the time. Bakula doesn't do self-centered very well--no one will mistaken him with Tom Cruise--so often he appeared petty.
Add comedic acting to the list. Scott had lots of trouble when Archer was supposed to be amusing. The weird scene in Babel in the mess hall with Trip; that was supposed to be funny. The trip to the fast food joint in Carpenter Street (an episode I personally love) could have been much funnier with a different actor but fell flat, the sick bay scene with Archer, Trip, and Phlox, in Bound, and pretty much all of his scenes in ANiS. When I wrote the thing about Nathan Fillion as Archer, I was thinking of ANiS in particular. With Fillion, that episode would not get the amount of derision from the fans as it currently receives.
bluedana wrote: View Post
I think there is a great deal of revisionist history going on. In the first two seasons, you would very often hear Trip being referred to as a hick (with criticisms of his attitude and his accent). As the series went on, and the writers more clearly defined his character (as opposed to generic character traits), and with the added emotional investment of the Shipper Wars, Trip eventually emerged as a fan favorite. (It's one of the reasons why TATV is so angry-making: the TATV-Trip didn't have any of the growth that Seasons-3-and-4-Trip demonstrated.) But his early incarnation was sometimes as superficially written as Archer's was, and he was not universally well-liked at the beginning of the series, either.
What revisionist history? After season 1, Trip was most fans favorite character by far. That surprised me because at the time, I was one of the ones who didn't like him. But as time went on, he grew on me. But for most fans, from what I recall here and on other Trek sites back then, he was the favorite character practically from the start.

As for the shipper wars, I really think that if Scott had handled Archer better, there may not have been the animosity there was. Lets put a much more capable actor in the role of Archer, again, like Nathan Fillion, and the battle between the T/Ters and ATPers cuts way down or ends, IMO.
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!
gblews is offline   Reply With Quote