I remember when Picard was a wimpy bald Frenchman who surrendered on his first mission and the D was curvy monstrosity not worthy of the name Enterprise.Remember when Archer was the worst captain ever and Bakula was horribly miscast?
"Captain Stubing in space."
boring
Pepperidge Farms remembersRemember when Archer was the worst captain ever and Bakula was horribly miscast?
Much like a refrigerated cake, the outrage industry needs a Best By date.
A bit of both. I love Bakula generally speaking, but some of what they were writing for Archer in his "dark phase" in season 3 was not written toward Bakula's strengths, and he couldn't pull them off convincingly even though there are probably other actors who could've made it work.
So I blame the writers more, but I think the limits of Bakula's acting ability were showing as well.
In contrast, Connor Trineer did a bang-up job in adapting when that sort of stuff was thrown at him. Very underrated actor.
EDIT: To clarify, this is purely referring to his acting ability re: later material. He was perfectly cast for season 1 Archer IMO.
Last edited:
Remember when Archer was the worst captain ever and Bakula was horribly miscast?
Both still true.
Yeah, the modellers even drew UGLY into the Aztec panelling. But the animosity towards TNG didn't last long and the show was strong in terms of ratings right out of the gate. By 1989/1990 the show was a critical darling and appeared on many magazines and was a pop culture phenomenon like GOT.
Sometimes I feel that the problem with the Archer character was that by casting such a likeable actor like Scott Bakula, it interfered with the idea that this guy was really supposed to be flawed. The whole point of having a Vulcan observer on the ship was because the humans were too immature to be out there by themselves, and and while Archer and Trip did little to change that assumption (especially in their initial treatment of T'Pol), Arche was always viewed by his crew and others as making the right decisions. Nobody ever questioned what he did, and he himself never pondered if he made the right or wrong choices. I always felt that it was a missed opportunity to show why the Prime Directive was created because of a serious fuckup that Archer did. But that wasn't what UPN wanted.
They did?
They did?
We got "Dear Doctor," in which half the Trek community now believes Archer committed genocide, so I always look at that incident early in the NX-01's mission as a primary example that helped lead to the Prime Directive after the Federation gets started. "One of your first deep space captains condemned half a planet's population to suffering and death because of his feelings. We need to reevaluate what captains can and can't do out there when away from a base and flag officers."
Yup. Port side warp pylon. They even reproduced it on the model kits:
Reddit - Please wait for verification
www.reddit.com
(Red box outlining the area.)
My wife was studying evolutionary biology when this travesty of an episode came out. The Science in the fiction could not be more wrong. It's kind of offensive!
Yup. Port side warp pylon. They even reproduced it on the model kits:
Reddit - Please wait for verification
(Red box outlining the area.)
And as I mentioned above, nothing came out of this, because nobody questioned Archer’s decision or held him accountable. Even Phlox had nothing but praise for him. T’Pol didn’t mention anything to her superiors, and we just got next week’s episode. Like VOY (which ENT was pretty much based on), nothing changed from week to week for the first two seasons.
Lmao Dukhat, you even replied to that thread.
Memory is a fickle thing.
I hate when I Google something and it gives me back my own answer to a question.
True.
The D doesn't have a lot of good angles, and from certain perspectives it can be a bit fugly and ungainly, IMHO. Cheers to the model maker forty years ago.
