So what's with all the Archer hate?

[jibrilmudo]

I never really understood it. But then I thought Dr. Pulaski was okay. Just okay though, not a fan.

Enterprise was my favorite series, it had a weak first season and took a while to find it's footing... but this was true of a lot of the treks including TNG (it's first season is much worse imo). If it was allowed to continue, I think it could have been a contender for the best trek.

ENT seemed like a very different (in a good way) ST show; it wasn't trying to simply emulate TNG in a different quadrant and the captain didn't have that ST ideology/dogma yet, and seemed to make sane, pragmatic decisions *cough* Voyager *cough*.

I also really like Archer's relationship with his dog. I'm not even a dog person He's about the most casual captain of the Treks while still keeping his distance from the crew.

 

[BruntFCA]

Might have something to do with him being terribly written and terribly acted.

 

[JiNX-01]

Might have something to do with him being terribly written and terribly acted.

I adore Scott Bakula. He was great in Quantum Leap.

So I attribute the issues with his performance to abominable writing and poor direction.

Seriously, what kind of jackass creates a lead character -- especially one who would be speaking on behalf of humanity during the series -- and present him as a bigot toward alien species in the opening scenes of the premiere?

 

[R. Star]

Yeah, Archer just did boneheaded things very regularly that didn't make him very sympathetic at all.

 

[Melakon]

I like Bakula's work in the show, and I never watched QL, but had seen him in other things. Even when the character was written poorly, he still added subtext in the performance just by some of his choices.

 

[BigJake]

Bakula did what he could, as did Blalock and Billingsley. The character and show were just kind of poorly-conceived, I think. Way too much leaning on the human heroes (esp. Archer and Trip) as avatars of Earth's childlike sense of wonder and adventure made them come off as just adolescent and incompetent most of the time, and the portrayal of the Vulcans as the collective mean-old-Reverend-from-Footloose didn't work too well either (nor did Manny Coto's later attempt, brave though it was, to make their weird portrayal into a plot point).

 

[jibrilmudo]

Seriously, what kind of jackass creates a lead character -- especially one who would be speaking on behalf of humanity during the series -- and present him as a bigot toward alien species in the opening scenes of the premiere?

Were his thoughts towards the Vulcans unjustified?

 

[BigJake]

Were his thoughts towards the Vulcans unjustified?

The series' whole interpretation of the relationship between Earth and the Vulcans was not a big hit, I think.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

I liked Archer, but I think the problem was that he was written as a mostly politically correct Kirk-lite, which was a huge disservice to Bakula. Many people say that Bakula is a poor actor. This couldn't actually be further from the truth. He just wasn't give the right character development in my view. I can remember how excited I was when he was cast and how let down I felt pretty much up until teh fourth season began.

 

[JiNX-01]

Seriously, what kind of jackass creates a lead character -- especially one who would be speaking on behalf of humanity during the series -- and present him as a bigot toward alien species in the opening scenes of the premiere?

Were his thoughts towards the Vulcans unjustified?

Thanks for reminding me. I couldn't believe that Bermaga would set up Vulcans as obstructionists after being portrayed for years as loyal friends of humanity.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Poorly conceived, badly written, terribly acted.

It always came across to me he only got the gig because of who his father was. He had little tactical wit, bigoted diplomatic skill, and no substantial scientific knowledge, all he seemed capable of doing was piloting a ship.

The writers tried to make him into a Picard-styles statesman with eloquent speeches, but Bakula just doesn't have the acting chops to pull them off. Giving him a dog was also pretty lame, especially when he takes it on diplomatic missions and onto strange worlds with unknown pathogens and parasites.

How he was supposed to be the "idol of Kirk" is laughable. Why would anyone want to emulate someone who gets their ass whooped every other week?

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Thanks for reminding me. I couldn't believe that Bermaga would set up Vulcans as obstructionists after being portrayed for years as loyal friends of humanity.

That was ridiculous. I can understand the Vulcans wanting humanity to take their time and advise caution--space is a dangerous place--and may have their own policies on not sharing technology, but I don't see why they would commit so many resources to helping humanity just to hold them back and then moan.

 

[Mach5]

Arrogant, petulant, borderline incompetent, yet miles ahead of Janeway.

 

[JiNX-01]

Seriously, what kind of jackass creates a lead character -- especially one who would be speaking on behalf of humanity during the series -- and present him as a bigot toward alien species in the opening scenes of the premiere?

Were his thoughts towards the Vulcans unjustified?

Well, let me see: In the scene with his father in "Broken Bow," he displays contempt for Soval, referring to him as "Ambassador Pointy." His father admonishes him, but he clearly retained his animosity toward Vulcans.

 

[gblews]

I wouldn't say Scott is a "bad" actor, I just think he was totally miscast as "Archer". The captain role in any Trek series is the most important and requires, according to most fans' tastes, at the least, presence and a certain amount of charisma. Scott was short on both.

Great acting can trump bad writing. We saw this numerous times in TOS, TNG, and DS9. We pretty much never saw it in Ent. Scott never seemed to be able to drag "Archer" up out of the muck of bad dialogue and characterization to the point that everyone at least respected the character even though he was being made to look ridiculous or contemptable. The entire show suffered mightily because of this.

As I have stated here before, it is no coincidence that the two least liked and respected of the Trek series' also have the least liked and least respected captain characters.

I certainly don't hate or even dislike Scott, he seems like a great person from what little I know about him, but he was as wrong as wrong can be for the role of Archer.

 

[R. Star]

Nah, Bakula was alright... he had a few moments where he really shone through, but the material was what held him back.

 

[Nebusj]

Well, I was all set to like Archer but then he borrowed my Arrested Development DVDs the day before this whole Klingots-in-Oklahoma thingy and he left without returning them and it was years before we even saw him again. I mean, c'mon, guy, where are your priorities?

 

[Relayer1]

I didn't like Bakula in Quantum Leap - in fact I didn't like Quantum Leap. I didn't want him in Enterprise.

As it turned out, he wasn't too bad, but the show was. The first two seasons were rotten. The third season was tedious.

I really liked season four though...

 

[Melakon]

I think Bakula's best moments were when he had to silently show Archer's internal struggles when faced with difficult decisions. He was always good at tortured soul type characters. The dialogue he had to deliver was the weak spot. He'd probably make an excellent villain.

 

[SiddFinch1]

Bakula was fine
I had more problem with the way things were presented. With it being 90 years since warp was discovered and first contact and minimal alien contact. Prequals are hard especially when the canon was made up in the fly in much of tos. You are boxed in. May not have mattered but the te.mporal cold war and xinti arc were not compelling. Would have preferred more use of Orion's. As early pirate threat at first. Perhaps even kzinti. then lead into romulan war and fed founding sooner thanseason 4.