• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

News Exclusive: Scott Bakula Eyeing Star Trek Return In President Archer Series Pitch From ‘Enterprise’ Producer

I would take Mike Sussman over Terry Matallis.
Lord King Terry, thou hast blasphemed.

I've not deep dived into Sussman's full Trek repertoire so don't know if he did many standouts (ENT:Twilight was one of his). But I agree with what others have said - it's another different concept, as an alternative to rehashing the same stuff that has been done before. I'd happily watch Bakula because he is Bakula, rather than because it's Archer. We know Bakula is a strong leader in production terms, we know ENT has picked up a lot more view than it did on UPN, and if the concept went forward I will bet he wouldn't be sole writer and the finished product will be very different from what we know about so far.

But yes, I also think he is being humoured.
 
‘Trolling’ might be too harsh a word. ‘Being intentionally vague with my Instagram post so as not to look stupid later’ might be more apt?
I doubt anything's happening on the United front at all. Sussman's probably on the lot for something else and Trek fans are doing what they do best and reading far too into the post.
 
Unless he can squeeze out a TV movie before the contract expirations next year, time is just not on his side.
Indeed. After SNW and Academy end, I don't see us having any new Star Trek on television for a couple years at least. I know Kurtzman has alluded to some stuff being developed in the pipeline, but I don't have high confidence any of it gets produced under the new management at the studio.
 
Sussman is not Aaron Sorkin.

Not everyone can make diplomacy entertaining.
And even if they could, Archer was never a diplomat, he was a dumbass who got the Enterprise job because of nepotism and then had to learn to listen to T'Pol to not fuck things up completely. There'd be at least 50 characters better suited for a show like that.
 
And even if they could, Archer was never a diplomat, he was a dumbass who got the Enterprise job because of nepotism and then had to learn to listen to T'Pol to not fuck things up completely. There'd be at least 50 characters better suited for a show like that.

And they wish to develop (another) series around this man. :rolleyes:
 
Federation President is probably more of a figure head position and Archer gets there on a legendary reputation rather than any serious fact-checking going on! :D

I suppose when he gets there, the decisions are made by years (admittedly offscreen) of learning to get team consensus, rather than a load of Trumpian bullshit executive orders.

Then of course, however wiser he's become and whatever good political choices he makes that ensures allies don't go back to being enemies, that whole Illyrian incident come very well come back to haunt him and oust him from office...

Like a few people's posts I've read, the flashback scenes to the Romulan War (deprived us by Seasons 5-7 not existing) are basically what we want to see. One of the new United characters supposedly being introduced in those opening scenes, so to make a reason for going there. Personally I'd like to see that kind of thing recurring like The Time War's lasting mark on Doctor Who, or another bit-by-bit reveal like Babylon 5's Earth-Minbari and it having long-term (kept secret) repercussions on both of that show's Captains.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to NCIS Scott Bakula probably still has still has higher name recognition then Patrick Stewart, even with Patrick Stewart's appearance in the X-Men franchise.
Thanks to Quantum Leap Scott Bakula had a higher name recognition than any other captain back when Enterprise started, that didn't really help. The problem wasn't his acting or star power, it was the writing. It felt like the writers were so concerned with creating a flawed and inexperienced captain that they mad him all flaws and no strengths.
Archer was apparently a decent test pilot and then not much else. He had no diplomatic skills, he was not a scientist and not even a good leader, he let his bias against Vulcans getting in the way of seeing T'Pol as the valuable asset she was and using her usually sensible advice to his advantage. The ship and crew were in danger more than once because he ignored her for no other reason than "humans do it differently".
 
Thanks to Quantum Leap Scott Bakula had a higher name recognition than any other captain back when Enterprise started, that didn't really help. The problem wasn't his acting or star power, it was the writing. It felt like the writers were so concerned with creating a flawed and inexperienced captain that they mad him all flaws and no strengths.
Archer was apparently a decent test pilot and then not much else. He had no diplomatic skills, he was not a scientist and not even a good leader, he let his bias against Vulcans getting in the way of seeing T'Pol as the valuable asset she was and using her usually sensible advice to his advantage. The ship and crew were in danger more than once because he ignored her for no other reason than "humans do it differently".
There is no reason for President Archer to be written that way.
 
And they wish to develop (another) series around this man. :rolleyes:

Well, if by 'they' you mean CBS/Paramount/Skydance, then no they don't. CBS had already passed on this pitch years ago when Sussman made it. As I mentioned before, I'm not sure why he's posting vague Instagram posts implying that they've changed their minds.
 
Archer was apparently a decent test pilot and then not much else. He had no diplomatic skills, he was not a scientist and not even a good leader, he let his bias against Vulcans getting in the way of seeing T'Pol as the valuable asset she was and using her usually sensible advice to his advantage. The ship and crew were in danger more than once because he ignored her for no other reason than "humans do it differently".

If the USA were to build an interstellar starship today, I can almost guarantee you that the CO would be an Air Force pilot or Navy Captain. As is the case with NASA COs and XOs today. A lot of them do have engineering or science backgrounds, however I would not consider them scientists even if they are doing science on the ISS. They are not trained diplomats nor politicians yet a lot of them end up in politics. Probably better then the average politician actually.

Archer fits perfectly.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top