I read the synopsis and it sounded great, then read how it was supposed to be lethargic to terrible. So I watched it and....yeah, the actor playing Cobb is not so great. his daughter is very good. And the episode reminds me how I was much too hard on Enterprise when it first came out. I like the slow pace. I like the low lighting. As usual, I like how hard it is to do basic things that are taken for granted in TNG time. I'd give the episode 2 1/2 to 3 stars.
I don't really have a problem with this episode itself but the issue for me is this story, like the other standalone shows in S4 feel like they've been plucked from the first 2 years of Enterprise and placed in a season were 18 of the 22 episodes are two parters or a trilogy.
"Daedalus" is problematical continuity-wise. So there's this void called the Barrens that's 100 light-years in radius, and Erickson went to the middle of it to do his transporter experiments a dozen years before NX-01 was launched? How do you reconcile that with "Two Days and Two Nights," in which NX-01 was the first Earth ship ever to go as far as 90 light-years from Earth? Not to mention that there is no such void in space anywhere near us in reality. Not to mention that's it's basically a rehash of Voyager's "Jetrel," but nowhere near as powerful. The one good thing in the episode is Leslie Silva as Danica.
I have a basic question about how episodes are done. At the very end of "Daedelus", Trip says "At least my engines still need me." That's a kind of petulant thing to say after appearing so understanding. But he's *acting* like it's a joke and the whole scene, aside from that line, shows a great maturity in Trip. It would help immensely if he added the line "That's a joke." So my question is, can a director say..."This isn't working, Connor, just add 'That's a joke.'"...without breaking a billion union rules, and the actor saying "That's not how it was scripted, I'm not saying it."
The first incident of the anomaly (later found to be Quinn) is a bit abrupt. That's what I thought about when I first saw it. There wasn't a lead up to the event, but Lt. Reed is waiting around with a phase rifle, and so it's a head scratching moment. I always thought the scene was a nod to Alan Moore's The Watchmen and Jon Ostermann's (Dr. Manhattan) abortive attempts to rematerialize after the experiment.
The director cannot AFAIK, it takes the show runner (the head writer/producer) to make that kind of decision. This very issue was brought up in the S3 documentary by Matt Winston (Daniels). He says that the process to ask for a clarification or change in his dialogue meant a call to the producers and then a wait while they decided if the change was a good one or not. Which he said was unusual in his experience on other shows, the show runner was usually easily available, often right there on set watching the filming.
How awful. Some of the best lines in film happened as a result of the actor's improvisation. Like the coarse scene of Full Metal Jacket where the drill sergeant is chewing out his troops. All of that was ad libbed. A brilliant bit of improv by R Lee Ermey. I guess that can't happen anymore?
I'm talking about TV. I'm sure most directors in film are still the masters of their domain (except for editing-unless they negotiated that-which always struck me as very odd that they couldn't edit their own films )
Why? You said yourself, his acting conveyed that it was a joke. So you understood it from his performance. Nothing more is needed. It's called subtext, and it's what acting is all about. Personally I find it really obnoxious when a script has characters come out and say something that's already obvious without spelling it out. It's a waste of words and an insult to the audience's intelligence. For instance, there's this scene in the movie of The Hunger Games (not sure if it's the same in the book) where Peeta tells Katniss that his mother said only one of them had a chance of surviving the Games, and he says, "But she wasn't talking about me." At that point, it's already obvious what he's saying, because there are only two possibilities. It would work great if they stopped there, because often what isn't said is more powerful. But they had him go on and say "She was talking about you," as if either Katniss or the audience were too dumb to compute 2 minus 1, and it really ruins the moment. I think I read recently that the policy was a reaction to the failure of Heaven's Gate. The director's excesses were seen as responsible for the movie's disastrous failure, and so the studios changed the rules to give themselves the final cut as a check on the directors. Although that's just what I read; I can't confirm it.
Because we're dealing with a Vulcan-Human relationship. T'Pol gave *no* reaction. She looked back and didn't look puzzled, or nod, or do anything. She looked and turned around. I'd like to know if she knew he was joking. Also, a human saying "That's a joke" to a Vulcan is a classic Trek line. He says "That's a joke", she gives the barest glimmer of a smile or a nod and we get the satisfaction of knowing that "Enterprise" is continuing to succeed in creating a very interesting, complex relationship between those two. I say all of the above with the full realization that we....*I * am nitpicking to DEATH the last line of 10 year old episode.
Re: That's a joke. Yes, that's Savik's response when he says "That's a joke", though she's half-Vulcan/half-Romulan, I believe. (Wrath of Khan). But I agree that one character explaining their lines to another character is supremely annoying.
Except we're not dealing with "a Vulcan," we're dealing with T'Pol, an individual with her own clearly defined character traits. T'Pol had been living among humans for three and a half years at that point, and she'd often been portrayed as more understanding of human idiom and humor than some other Vulcan characters such as Spock. And she frequently gave as good as she got, and then some, in the deadpan snark department. So any loyal viewer would already know that T'Pol had a well-developed sense of humor.
I certainly agree with the "Hunger Games" example given. That was near-parody in it's clumsiness. I half expected him to say "My penis....is the hammer."
When I first saw the title I remember thinking, Yay we're going to see a proper ship of the era! Was disappointed with yet another transporters-gone-wrong episode. It did remind me of "Jetrel". Also felt out of place in the season of fanwank (whereas a Daedalus-Class starship would've fit in nicely though ).
The studios have had final cut since the earliest days of the studio system. Certain directors and/or producers have been able to negotiate final cut, based upon past commercial success, but only a select number are in such a position.
LOL, I too thought the episode name meant we were getting some Daedalus-class continuity porn. As for the episode we got, I thought it was okay. Nothing special, nothing terrible.
It's surprisingly now one of my favourite episodes in S4. First time I saw it, was really disappointed after the great arc stories and general all round improvement. Really did feel like a throwback to earlier shows (esp. TOS). But now I love its very different rhythm and performance pacing (esp from guest actors) as season heads to finale. I also think it's one of the most 'human' of the all the series' shows.
Watched "Daedelus" earlier tonight, its not one of my favourite episodes, just dont see the need for it in Season 4, and along with "Observer Effect" it seems like a pace changing device to bridge between the Vulcan arc and the Andorrian/Tellerite/Romulan arc (which is great). Also can anyone tell me how Jonathan Archer could possibly have met Zephram Cochrane ? I`m no mathematician, but Archer would have to have been very young and Cochrane extremely old for to have met, surely.
"Metamorphosis" says Cochrane was 87 when he disappeared 150 years before the episode, which is now assumed to be set in 2267. That would mean he was born in 2030 and was only 33 when he made the warp breakthrough in 2063. Archer was born in 2112, so Cochrane would've been 80 at the time. The book Federation: The First 150 Years finesses these numbers a bit. It says he was still on Earth in 2121 at the age of 90, and had a meet-cute with 8-year-old Jonathan Archer. His disappearance is at least two years later, or only 144 years before "Metamorphosis." The book also has Cochrane mention that he was "old at thirty" due to WWIII radiation exposure and alcohol abuse, in order to explain the casting of the 56-year-old James Cromwell as a Cochrane who was supposed to be in his early 30s.
So he would have to be very, very old when he met a very young Archer ? One of the reasons I was puzzled was possibly due to the fact that James Cromwell was cast as Cochrane and he looked old, even older than 56. Thanks for the input.