Daedalus episode
- Thread starter itchy01ca
- Start date
I've got no idea, but this is one of the worst ENT episode, IMHO. The acting really is worse than amateur; it's hard to believe that these are actually professionals who've done good work elsewhere.
I liked the concept of the episode, but I prefer David Brin's take on the creator of the transporter.
When I originally heard the title, I hoped to see a Daedalus class ship.
Story was OK, nothing great.
Story was OK, nothing great.
Didn't really notice any problems with the acting.
The biggest problem is being 100 light years from the nearest star when they had only recently ventured 100 light years from Earth, and they were there because the two were trying to rescue their lost son.....
Crap script.
Um, they were about 90 LY from Earth in Two Days and Two Nights (season 1).
Last edited:
Bill Cobbs is a good actor, and although his approach to the role of Emory Erickson was unusual, I wouldn't personally judge it to be a poor performance.
In my opinion, Bill Cobbs played Emory just a bit too crotchety, so that it was hard to empathize with his mission to save his son. Had he been less of a jerk, the dilemma Archer found himself in (loyalty to family vs. loyalty to ship) would have felt more compelling.
On the big technical problem in the episode, we can creatively interpret Archer's words regarding the Barrens...
"We're entering" might well mean that they are now half a lightyear into a big bubble that is 100 ly across and starless, and aiming to get about five lightyears into it before beginning the experiments. Doesn't mean they reached the dead center of a 200 ly wide sphere of nothingness within the confines of the episode... After all, they never say anything about "dead center", and it's never a plot point that the nearest star ought to be 100 ly away.
Timo Saloniemi
"We're entering" might well mean that they are now half a lightyear into a big bubble that is 100 ly across and starless, and aiming to get about five lightyears into it before beginning the experiments. Doesn't mean they reached the dead center of a 200 ly wide sphere of nothingness within the confines of the episode... After all, they never say anything about "dead center", and it's never a plot point that the nearest star ought to be 100 ly away.
Timo Saloniemi
Besides whatever the acting issues were, the story suffers from an age-old problem in Star Trek: the problem of "this futuristic device that has revolutionized technology turns out to have been built by one guy, instead of, like, a whole team of scientists and engineers like what would happen in real-life." I mean, c'mon. This dude invented the transporters? That's about as unbelievable as a womanizing, drunk old man creating warp drive in his spare time in the aftermath of a nuclear war, when he's not passed out from boozing all night and listening to too much Steppenwolf.
Eh, Galileo was a bit of a lone wolf and look at what he did. And I'm sure he would have listened to too much Steppenwolf if given the option.
You're comparing building telescopes to building a matter transporter?
It probably would be a project of roughly similar relative scope, yes.
Galileo had staff - two, three people. Erickson would have staff, too - perhaps two, three hundred people. Galileo built his telescope out of preexisting parts using preexisting research and design. Erickson would probably do the same. Galileo got his name in the history books, instead of the people who first invented the telescope or first applied it to astronomy, because his political patrons found that advantageous. Erickson would probably get credit for centuries of Vulcan research for the very same reason, too.
Whether Erickson would still be hailed two centuries later is debatable. An invention stolen from interstellar peers after Earth had already made first contact would have much less impact than an invention stolen from Earthly peers and applied in a manner that changed history forever.
Timo Saloniemi
Galileo had staff - two, three people. Erickson would have staff, too - perhaps two, three hundred people. Galileo built his telescope out of preexisting parts using preexisting research and design. Erickson would probably do the same. Galileo got his name in the history books, instead of the people who first invented the telescope or first applied it to astronomy, because his political patrons found that advantageous. Erickson would probably get credit for centuries of Vulcan research for the very same reason, too.
Whether Erickson would still be hailed two centuries later is debatable. An invention stolen from interstellar peers after Earth had already made first contact would have much less impact than an invention stolen from Earthly peers and applied in a manner that changed history forever.
Timo Saloniemi
That's my point: Where did it say that Erickson had a staff? IIRC, the episode implied that he created the transporter on his own.
Why would the idea that he had staff be at odds with him creating the transporter on his own? The staff is just little people, worthless minions who barely get paid and hardly ever are remembered. The whole university enabling the research, the whole nation funding it, are insignificant compared with the appointed inventor (say, Galileo, or Newton, or Gates).
Nobody ever said Cochrane didn't have staff, either. He did explicitly have Sloane. And he did have three seats built into his test rig, which also appeared to require a launch crew... He had an organization, at least until the Borg came. He probably had an even bigger and better organization before the ECON came...
Timo Saloniemi
Nobody ever said Cochrane didn't have staff, either. He did explicitly have Sloane. And he did have three seats built into his test rig, which also appeared to require a launch crew... He had an organization, at least until the Borg came. He probably had an even bigger and better organization before the ECON came...
Timo Saloniemi
Really? Because I thought he was played kind of Hallmark Crotchety, really rather cliched old man grumbling. I would have thought it stronger if he was bitter and you just saw glimpses of the man Archer admired and loved.. and Archer was on a mission to find his son so he could also find the old Emory again. Because you know.. Archer has lived through many failures and regrets himself by now and perhaps he's just a little fearful of turning out like Emory.
I like this ep just fine but it could have been edgier. Or rather, edgy.
He was mean and surly and abrupt and whiny. Even the big reveal about his physical state never had any sort of tenderness or anything that made me actually feel empathy for him. So there was nothing balancing out his lying and deception that cost a man his life. Frankly, at the end of the episode, I was like, Good grief, Archer, it's no wonder you get so cranky. Your dad was like, DON'T FAIL, and your surrogate dad is a d*ck.
I felt sorry for both his kids. I was ready to make "Free Dani!" tee-shirts.
My problem for me is the idea that transporter technology had been invented by a human in that time period. From what I understand, teleportation is incredibly difficult and may not happen for hundreds of years. It would've made more sense if that tech had been developed by Vulcans or some other race and Erickson for this episode fine tuned it, making it more practical in space travel.
My Problem with Daedalus was Emory lying to everyone and because of his deceit a crewmen got killed because of his lies. I also didn't care for Archer not listening to Trip and T'Pol about their concerns about other crew members maybe injured or killed because of Emory trying to get his son back.
Similar threads
