It is all a personal opinion question. I actually thought Bakula did a fine job, especially in S3, where he carried just about the whole shebang. I never watched "Quantum Leap" so I saw him with fresh eyes, and liked his portrayal of Archer very much.
Scott Bakula... worst acting job ever in Trek?
- Thread starter CaptainHawk1
- Start date
Yet ironically, it was reported that Scott was the only castmember with some amount of script editing power written into his contract. It was also reported that Scott exercised that "power" prior to season 3 (I believe it was season 3)....And that is my argument in a nutshell and I agree with you that script decisions aren't the actors' fault.
-Shawn
Throughout the year I watch all of Trek in chronological order and I'm up to the first season of ENT, which to be quite honest, the more I watch, the more I appreciate it than when it first aired. However, throughout this adventure (I think I'm up to disc 5), I've come to a very sad conclusion that I never thought that I'd have to admit: Scott Bakula put on the worst performance of any regular cast member in the history of Trek when he was on ENT.
I'm very sorry, but it's true and please understand where I'm coming from as I'm not a basher and I actually like Scott Bakula as an actor a lot. My favorite show of all time is Quantum Leap and I still think to this day that Bakula's performance on that show was one of the best in the history of TV. I also do like ENT. It's never been my favorite Trek and like I said, the more I watch it, the more I enjoy it but F*** me if Bakula's performance wasn't completely wooden, lazy and uninspired. I seems like he's constantly reading off of cue cards or teleprompters. There's no passion and I don't recall that changing over the course of the four seasons.
I'm beginning to understand why Connor Trineer was so popular on that show. His performances were fantastic.
So I'm just wondering if it's just me or have other fans noticed this as well. BTW, some objectivity would be nice. I don't need gushers throwing tomatoes at me or bashers just posting to trash ENT.
-Shawn
Sorry, IMO - worst acting jobs go to:
Tim Russ, Garrett Wang, or Robert beltran (yet three more reasons I gave up on Star Trek: Voyager after The 37's. the fact Kate Mulgrews voice sounded like she had smoked 10 packs of ciggarettes a bay freom the time she was 10 years old (not saying she did, just saying she SOUNDED that way); didn't help either.
I wouldn't say he had the worst acting, just not the best. The worst actor would definitely be Avery Brooks. Why couldn't they have chosen Mr. T?
^ Ha, nice! I kinda feel like that sums it up.
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
Sounds like a rumor to me as it's well known that NO actor has ever been allowed to change the words on the page.Yet ironically, it was reported that Scott was the only castmember with some amount of script editing power written into his contract. It was also reported that Scott exercised that "power" prior to season 3 (I believe it was season 3)....And that is my argument in a nutshell and I agree with you that script decisions aren't the actors' fault.
-Shawn
-Shawn
Yeah, now that you mention it, I misspoke or mistyped. It was reported that Scott had some influence on his character (not the script) written into his contract. Was never confirmed to my knowledge.Sounds like a rumor to me as it's well known that NO actor has ever been allowed to change the words on the page.Yet ironically, it was reported that Scott was the only castmember with some amount of script editing power written into his contract. It was also reported that Scott exercised that "power" prior to season 3 (I believe it was season 3)....And that is my argument in a nutshell and I agree with you that script decisions aren't the actors' fault.
-Shawn
-Shawn
Bakula had very limited feedback on his character. In a ST magazine article [maybe someone can find the link], he indicated after season 2, he talked with Berman and Braga about his character -- worried -- and that the two indicated that season 3 would help allay his concerns. To my knowledge, that was the only time he talked with the head writer and producer about his character.
Other than that, I think he made a call about a specific revisions to a script -- procedure required him to call Bermaga -- maybe three times in four years.
Again -- major problem. If the writers, directors and actors don't interact on a regular basis, how can you create a non-stereotypical character? ENT would never have had a discussion, a la Leonard Nimoy, where he argued Spock wouldn't choose outright violence and thus the Vulcan neck pinch was born.
Big mistake. It's why the characters are schizophrenic and two-dimensional in many cases. It's also why you get disgruntled actors - like Jolene Blalock who complained her character wasn't Vulcan enough, snipes about TATV's involvement of TNG actors, etc.
Other than that, I think he made a call about a specific revisions to a script -- procedure required him to call Bermaga -- maybe three times in four years.
Again -- major problem. If the writers, directors and actors don't interact on a regular basis, how can you create a non-stereotypical character? ENT would never have had a discussion, a la Leonard Nimoy, where he argued Spock wouldn't choose outright violence and thus the Vulcan neck pinch was born.
Big mistake. It's why the characters are schizophrenic and two-dimensional in many cases. It's also why you get disgruntled actors - like Jolene Blalock who complained her character wasn't Vulcan enough, snipes about TATV's involvement of TNG actors, etc.
It seems a lot of the cast had issues they wanted resolved. Connor with Trip being such a catfish loving pecan pie eating hick. Jolene with her look. If Scott did have any input with the writers you would think they would cut back on some of the stupid things they had him do as captain.
Trek actors of the modern era had little or no input.One of my fav quotes from Scott Bakula was during an online chat he was asked about adlibbing(as he did on QL) and he said "there is no adlibbing in space" and laughed. I relayed that comment to DS9 writer Ricky Manning and he said that is for sure!
The character as written was a bit unevenly at times, but I loved some of the physical quirks that Bakula gave Archer. Bakula's acting choices seemed consistent with the quirks that powerful or great men have. For me his acting choices grounded Archer into a believable person even when the writers were making a hash of the character.
You are correct.
From the horse's mouth (direct quotes from Bakula himself):
Trekweb:
Hmm, if he had a lot of creative control, why would he say that?
And in the first season of Enterprise, the tactful Bakula says this:
From other pieces of information, like how many times the actors called the exec producer for a script change, we know no one had a direct line to Berman/Braga unless it was a scheduled appointment and those were few and far between.
How do I know?
Bakula asked for few script changes. Creative control = let's do this with this character.
Let's give credit where its due, blame appropriately and balance when needed.
Last edited:
CaptainHawk1
Commodore
Yeah, it's amazing how receptive he thought they were at episode 6.
Why is this a shock? Of course he was all excited when he first took the job aboutthe level of feedback he was gettting. Obviously as the 4 seasons progressed he realized his enthusiam was misplaced.
Alao character development is one thing, dialogue is another. I was watching Vox Sola last night and had the text commentary going and according to Mike and Denise Okuda, the addtoion of being a water polo fan to the character of Archer was an addition made based on Bakula's input as he's a fan.
None of this really changes anything, though. Bakual had no input on the dialogue, the dialogue wasn't bad he just couldn't deliver his lines effectively.
-Shawn
First, some background: I'm a huge Scott Bakula fan--loved him on Quantum Leap and other stuff, plus, he seems like a genuinely nice and interesting human being.
And I'm a pretty dedicated Trek fan--seen most of the various series (though I largely skipped VOY b/c it was too damn boring) and I've become increasingly fond of Enterprise--it alternates between hilariously awful and genuinely engaging (sometimes both at the same time).
HOWEVER, while I'm enjoying Enterprise more the more I watch it, with my favorite actors being Connor Trinneer, John Billingsley and Jolene Blaylock (because, God bless her, she improved a lot and tried her damnedest with the cr*p she was given), I absolutely hated Archer/Bakula.
Like some previous posters have already stated, this is due more to the sloppy characterization and bad writing of Archer than Bakula's acting. (As a character, Archer makes absolutely no sense to me. He's completely unpredictable--not in a shoots-from-the-hip Kirk kind of way, but in a mentally unbalanced, I-have-no-short-term-memory-therefore-I-never-learn-from-previous-experiences kind of way. And it was doubly galling that the rest of the characters were supposed to think that Archer walked on water.)
But Bakula's acting certainly didn't help. I've been repeatedly struck by his very strange acting choices as Archer. For example, he frequently gives orders or asks questions in a super-pissy way, in situations where there is absolutely no reason to be upset or angry. And while Bakula really shines in scenes where he shows compassion and humor, I thought he missed a lot of opportunities to show this off during the series, particularly during the Xindi arc. Yes, I know, the fate of Earth rested on his shoulders, yak, yak, yak--but it seems like the only emotional settings he had during this arc (and most of the series) were: (1) angry, (2) angrier, and (3) a**hole. There were plenty of missed opportunities to inject just a LITTLE more nuance into Archer, particularly in his scenes with Trip.
From his work on Quantum Leap, I believe that Bakula can effectively portray authoritative, commanding, charismatic, etc.--but he didn't really bring that to Archer. Maybe Bakula was too constrained by the scripts. Maybe it was the directors. Maybe it was the evil Bermaga.
But I'm going to offer an alternate theory that my husband and I came up with: Bakula deliberately portrayed Archer as an incompetent, borderline schizophrenic, narcissistic a**hole. For whatever reason (maybe as a form of protest against Archer's incoherent, badly written character, maybe because it's never really been done before), he decided to make Archer as unlikable and incomprehensible as he could. He wanted to go down in history as the d*ckiest, stupidest Captain in all of Trek. And he did a damn fine job of it. If you look at the series with that theory in mind, Bakula's acting choices make a lot more sense.
OK, OK, I know that no actor in his right mind would really do this. But I'd rather believe that Bakula deliberately f'ed it up than that Bakula somehow lost 50-75% of his acting abilities once he started Enterprise. Though I don't think he did the WORST acting job ever in Trek--maybe most disappointing would be more accurate.
(Sorry about the long rant, guys, but I just finished watching TATV all the way through for the first time and had to vent my spleen.)
And I'm a pretty dedicated Trek fan--seen most of the various series (though I largely skipped VOY b/c it was too damn boring) and I've become increasingly fond of Enterprise--it alternates between hilariously awful and genuinely engaging (sometimes both at the same time).
HOWEVER, while I'm enjoying Enterprise more the more I watch it, with my favorite actors being Connor Trinneer, John Billingsley and Jolene Blaylock (because, God bless her, she improved a lot and tried her damnedest with the cr*p she was given), I absolutely hated Archer/Bakula.
Like some previous posters have already stated, this is due more to the sloppy characterization and bad writing of Archer than Bakula's acting. (As a character, Archer makes absolutely no sense to me. He's completely unpredictable--not in a shoots-from-the-hip Kirk kind of way, but in a mentally unbalanced, I-have-no-short-term-memory-therefore-I-never-learn-from-previous-experiences kind of way. And it was doubly galling that the rest of the characters were supposed to think that Archer walked on water.)
But Bakula's acting certainly didn't help. I've been repeatedly struck by his very strange acting choices as Archer. For example, he frequently gives orders or asks questions in a super-pissy way, in situations where there is absolutely no reason to be upset or angry. And while Bakula really shines in scenes where he shows compassion and humor, I thought he missed a lot of opportunities to show this off during the series, particularly during the Xindi arc. Yes, I know, the fate of Earth rested on his shoulders, yak, yak, yak--but it seems like the only emotional settings he had during this arc (and most of the series) were: (1) angry, (2) angrier, and (3) a**hole. There were plenty of missed opportunities to inject just a LITTLE more nuance into Archer, particularly in his scenes with Trip.
From his work on Quantum Leap, I believe that Bakula can effectively portray authoritative, commanding, charismatic, etc.--but he didn't really bring that to Archer. Maybe Bakula was too constrained by the scripts. Maybe it was the directors. Maybe it was the evil Bermaga.
But I'm going to offer an alternate theory that my husband and I came up with: Bakula deliberately portrayed Archer as an incompetent, borderline schizophrenic, narcissistic a**hole. For whatever reason (maybe as a form of protest against Archer's incoherent, badly written character, maybe because it's never really been done before), he decided to make Archer as unlikable and incomprehensible as he could. He wanted to go down in history as the d*ckiest, stupidest Captain in all of Trek. And he did a damn fine job of it. If you look at the series with that theory in mind, Bakula's acting choices make a lot more sense.
OK, OK, I know that no actor in his right mind would really do this. But I'd rather believe that Bakula deliberately f'ed it up than that Bakula somehow lost 50-75% of his acting abilities once he started Enterprise. Though I don't think he did the WORST acting job ever in Trek--maybe most disappointing would be more accurate.
(Sorry about the long rant, guys, but I just finished watching TATV all the way through for the first time and had to vent my spleen.)
Very PC and he said that as well then what I said--they took his calls but nothing got changed unless it was letting him do the stunt or not.
Similar threads
