Season 3 Trip: why not vengeful?

[commodore64]

I liked The Expanse, where Trip muttered under his breath to Archer that they'd better 'take care of the Xindi'. I also liked in The Forgotten when he gave Degra the stink eye. And I really liked in Twilight when he said they should shoot the Xindi prisoners out the airlock.

So with all the step up -- why didn't they stick with that guy?

It gave the comic relief dude an edge. I felt sorry and empathetic to Vengeful Trip, almost like he had a Hamlet thing going. He had to ignore his nature to seek revenge. He needed to save Earth and yet he felt compelled to destroy the species that murdered 7 million Earthlings, including his baby sister. And The Expanse set that up nicely. This was a totally compelling character.

Instead, we got a mopey guy for all of season 3 and the majority of season 4. And because he lost some of his edge, they had to remind us -- many times -- he had a dead sister and was up nights. I'm wondering if the writers felt they had to re-explain he lost his sister and couldn't sleep because he lost his edge. If we saw him, grim and determined, I doubt any of us would forget the impact he'd suffered. It might also make his sudden remembrance in The Forgotten and breakdown all the more powerful. Nothing like seeing a strong guy cry, rather than one who seems depressed over the long-term.

Anyone else think Trip would've been a more intriguing character by being vengeful in season 3? And why didn't they stick with that after they'd set it up? I don't think it was a failing of the actor; I think he did a pretty good job provided what he was given.

 

[JiNX-01]

I think it could have been an interesting way to go... but being hot under the collar all the time can be exhausting... and it can wear on the fans, too. And there weren't always opportunities for his need/desire for revenge to surface...

Trip was "coping" by suppressing his grief, going all the way back to "The Expanse." That's how Elizabeth became "The Forgotten."

 

[commodore64]

I think it could have been an interesting way to go... but being hot under the collar all the time can be exhausting... and it can wear on the fans, too. And there weren't always opportunities for his need/desire for revenge to surface...

Trip was "coping" by suppressing his grief, going all the way back to "The Expanse." That's how Elizabeth became "The Forgotten."

I'll give you Hamlet as the ultimate in revenge. He wasn't hot around the collar all the time and people seem to love that character. Instead, he tried to figure out what was the right thing to do -- weighing his actions -- while still being unhappy with his uncle/stepfather and hot around the collar when appropriate.

For example, it may've been more interesting when he burned himself in the Xindi, that Phlox tried to help him -- seeing a wound -- and Trip got a stiff upper lip. "I'm fine. There are probably others who need more help than me." I think that would make me want to have more characters reach out to him.

I mean, I felt sorrier for Archer than I did Trip. The actor was losing weight, the scripts depicted the character up nights and alone working, he eschewed attention and help. The dude seemed on the brink. He wasn't always angry, just determined. And by having Trip become more determined, they could've backed off Archer's 180 transformation from season 2.

The "coping" that Trip portrayed -- what seemed liked moping to me -- didn't really receive my empathy or sympathy. If he'd kept a stiff upper lip or his coping was to ignore it or revenge, I think I would've felt sorrier for him.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Maintaining a character thru the various emotional phases - shock, anger, then cooling down to a kind of dogged determination with the anger right under the surface, ready to appear when the conditions merit - would be a challenge to write for consistently over an entire season. But Trinneer could have acted the hell out of that role, and I would have loved to see it.

 

[Nimthim]

Ah, Commie, I think you're asking more than what a lot of those Trek writers could deliver. And judging from previous series, they would probably think a vengeful character would be wrong. Mostly, the vengeful characters in Trek are the baddies who must be set straight by the righteous regular Trek characters. So there is probably no way they could have written it well.
From a personal perspective, after 3 years I still have rare occasions where I fantasize revenge on my son's girlfriend for his death. So I do get that a bit more of that for Trip would have rung more true, and have made for more interesting viewing. It is a part of most of us in certain circumstances, as much as we work to suppress it and might try to deny it.
But there was way more that could have done with Archer in S3 also - the writers give him a serious moral dilemma or hard choice, ala Similtude or Damage, and then totally backpedal from lasting effects or consequences. I would have been on board with more there also. We rarely get story continuity in Trek. Characters are written more like those episodic sitcoms: deal with the situation of the week and everyone remains exactly the same after.
And so we continue to sigh over might have beens - at least ENT inspires them.

 

[commodore64]

Agreed about Archer, too. I've never settled a set back to have one night of sex solve things. I've also never seen it work in drama, mostly because it sucks away the drama. I think that's called distraction, rather than dealing with the issue. In a sense, Archer never had his "Forgotten," because the writers seemed ready to move on. Too bad. That definitely was a might-have-been. The one issue I have is -- it's weird being an audience member and seeing opportunities missed. If I were a writer for the show, I would've loved the challenge of following up on Archer's guilt -- dealing with things.

I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your son. You're right. I think your reaction is very normal and human.

But Trinneer could have acted the hell out of that role, and I would have loved to see it.

I don't think Trinneer would've "acted the hell out of it," mostly because I think he was good, but not awesome. Out of all the Star Treks, I think he is the most over-rated actor. People enjoyed the "every man" character he portrayed (and he did a nice job), but chalked up an easy performance to a great performance. I couldn't disagree more. I think every other actor had more of a challenge on their hands and Billingsley acted the hell out of his role to make the doctor unique and not just another Neelix. (Just based on the writing, he could've easily been.)

I do think the actor would've enjoyed the challenge and pushed himself into new territories and the audience would've been treated to more than "guy next door." The writers, too, would have a great and juicy challenge ahead of them, too. Seems like a win-win-win.

 

[gblews]

I liked The Expanse, where Trip muttered under his breath to Archer that they'd better 'take care of the Xindi'. I also liked in The Forgotten when he gave Degra the stink eye. And I really liked in Twilight when he said they should shoot the Xindi prisoners out the airlock.

So with all the step up -- why didn't they stick with that guy?

The 3 biggest obstacles to seeing a better show with more consistent characterizations were, Paramount, UPN, and Bermaga.

Had the show been on Sci-Fi or HBO for example, we may have gotten awy from the completely "captain centric" stories and we might have seen more attention given to the other characterizations. We may have seen a more pronounced vengefulness from Trip in even more episodes than what we saw in ENT season 3. But as it was, Trek had to adhere to certain things and an overly dark (regular) character over an entire season just would not have flown with TPTB.

More for Trinnieer could never have been a bad thing for ENT, so I would say that I would have liked to have seen more of "dark angry" Trip in season 3 also. I disagree with the premise presented in your thread title -- that is, that Trip wasn't vengeful at all in season 3.

It gave the comic relief dude an edge.

Agree. One of the things that made me dislike Trip in the first two seasons was the constant buffoonery, especially since even though "comic relief Trip" was well acted, the actor seemed capable of so much more. I stuck with the show and was rewarded in season 3 when "Trip" became a much more rounded and interesting character.

 

[suebsg9]

I liked that you got to see any angry Trip especially at the builder of the weapon which was Degra and you know not sure why Archer wouldn't be surprized that Trip told him about losses of life from the weapon and never got why people didn't let him get the anger off his chest made sense. I mean we did get an angry Trip just Archer told him to return to duty and Tpol was trying to reason with him and its like he lost his sis to the weapon of the guy you are trying to make an alli he has every right to lash out I mean let him get it off his chest instead of keeping bottled up which they wanted him to do!

 

[commodore64]

I liked that you got to see any angry Trip especially at the builder of the weapon which was Degra

Yeah, you know -- I guess my point above is that it seemed too little, too late. Good drama with a lot of potential that fizzled because he wasn't really angry for the majority of the season ... maybe not even 25% of the season.

I mean we did get an angry Trip just Archer told him to return to duty and Tpol was trying to reason with him and its like he lost his sis to the weapon of the guy you are trying to make an alli he has every right to lash out I mean let him get it off his chest instead of keeping bottled up which they wanted him to do!

Too little, too late. One episode didn't make me believe in his grief. If we're talking show vs. tell, which I think most people really enjoy, I kept hearing Trip was sad and depressed (with trouble sleeping), but only saw Archer losing weight, working late and more. Made the "edge" that Trip was supposed to have really deflated and thus fall pretty flat.

Unlike some here, I think his character took a major back slide in season 3 and 4. At least in seasons 1 and 2, Trip was funny and charming. In seasons 3 and 4, he's pouting and mercurial when it seems inappropriate. Expanse held a lot of hope Trip would round out as a character; I don't think that ever happened.

 

[angie]

Angry Trip would been more believable to me. Prior to the Expanse we came to know Trip as a passionate man whether it be for his engines or injustice.We get a glimpse of this in the Expanse but it disappears after he gets a few massages from a woman.I understand submerging feelings and substituting other emotions for anger and grief.I think he writers made the wrong choice in having Trip become like that. They then trotted out his anger and grief when they needed a plot device. I didn't buy that Trip who loved his family would have not visited them when he had a chance to see how they were doing.Though maybe when they moved they didn't leave a forwarding address......

 

[The Sneeze Police]

Was it ever mentioned if anyone else lost friends or family in the attack?

It always seemed odd to me that Archer was the only crew mwmber who was obssessed with finding & stopiing the Xindi. Bakula did a good job making me believe the toll on Archer feeling the full weight of his responsibility.

 

[commodore64]

No one, to my knowledge, indicated they lost people in the attack, which seems weird: 7 million people is a lot of folks.

Angie, agreed. It seems someone who is so devastated over his sisters' death would want to be with his family when he could. Home was a huge disappointment; it astounds me anyone thought that was good television or Star Trek. And agreed on plot devices that fell flat b/c they were not only illogical, but not very dramatic (at least in a good way) -- they were more melodramatic than anything. If I wanted to watch melodrama, I'd watch soaps, not science fiction.

 

[miriel68]

I think there was one really weak point about the whole thing with Trip's sister: she came out of blue only AFTER the Xindi's attack: we have never heard about her before, we have never seen her or even seen Trip talking about her. His grief and our understanding of it is therefore based on an abstract notion that it is a traumatic experience to lost a member of family and not on our emotive participation in his grief: in fact we feel sorry only for Trip and not for her sister. It is very difficult to carry on a convincing performance in such circumstances.

 

[Captain X]

Wow, we actually agree on something... That's a major weakness and cliche of Star Trek or any other show for that matter - they make a big deal out of a character's death but it rings hollow because we never saw or heard of the character before.

I also think it was a weakness to not show Trip visiting his family since he obviously visited what was left of his home town. Even if he didn't want to go to the memorial it would've been nice to see Trip interacting with his family beyond some dream sequences of his sister. Failing that, the least they could've done is mention that Trip might have had some kind of falling out with his family. This could've easily been used to explain why Trip didn't want to go to the memorial and why he was so pissy about it when Malcom asked him why.

 

[commodore64]

Miriel, agreed, and maybe I misunderstood your point, but I'm not even sure "we" feel sorry for Trip. I kinda felt the third time they (the writers) brought it up that he was being a baby about it.

I think in general, many times the writers failed to show rather than tell. "Oh, poor Trip, he's not sleeping." I don't get as much impact out of that as I do watching Archer (for example) staying up late, alone in a darkened room to look at the Xindi database. I think that's the difference between abstract (tell) vs. concrete (show).

 

[miriel68]

Miriel, agreed, and maybe I misunderstood your point, but I'm not even sure "we" feel sorry for Trip. I kinda felt the third time they (the writers) brought it up that he was being a baby about it.

I think in general, many times the writers failed to show rather than tell. "Oh, poor Trip, he's not sleeping." I don't get as much impact out of that as I do watching Archer (for example) staying up late, alone in a darkened room to look at the Xindi database. I think that's the difference between abstract (tell) vs. concrete (show).

Agreed, commodore . Sometimes "telling" can be effective, even in a movie, but you have to use it well. I have a general impression Trip's storyline wasn't handled well in 3rd season. And you are, of course, right that we don't feel really sorry for Trip, either, we rather are "obligated" by the writers to feel sorry for him, which is kind of poor trick and a bit irritating, too .

 

[angie]

The thing is I think the writers were just lazy.Having Trip as the "spokesman" for the crew's feelings about the attack was a good idea they just didn't follow it up unless they needed it as a plot device.That kind of continuity is often overlooked in genre shows where explosions and effects are more "fun" for producers.

 

[Captain X]

Miriel, agreed, and maybe I misunderstood your point, but I'm not even sure "we" feel sorry for Trip. I kinda felt the third time they (the writers) brought it up that he was being a baby about it.

Yeah, I mean his sister is dead and all, but man he's such a pussy for crying. It's not like men are supposed to express any kind of emotion other than anger.

I think in general, many times the writers failed to show rather than tell. "Oh, poor Trip, he's not sleeping." I don't get as much impact out of that as I do watching Archer (for example) staying up late, alone in a darkened room to look at the Xindi database. I think that's the difference between abstract (tell) vs. concrete (show).

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but that's the same thing. They showed us that Trip couldn't sleep and was having nightmares.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

People deal with grief in different ways. Some collapse under the weight of it, becoming inconsolable and depressed. Others become obsessed with vengeance to the exclusion of all else. Still others push their grief and sorrow down into denial in order to keep functioning, denying themselves the catharsis of the grieving process because it's too painful.

In "The Xindi," it seemed to me that Trip had been trying for some time to deny his grief; he was already paying for that with chronic insomnia and nightmares. And with all that pent-up emotion, it was coming out in explosions of emotions, such as his confrontation with that Xindi informant. He needed an outlet. The writers chose neuropressure, which had elements of meditation, massage, and intimacy--which helped Trip to sleep, kept him from going off the deep end, and did advance the Season 3 storyline for Trip and T'Pol.

As for why the writers didn't choose Vengeance!Trip for the Xindi arc...I suspect they thought he might too closely resemble the increasingly obsessed, morally tortured Archer they had planned to unveil in Season 3.

Should Elizabeth have been set up earlier? Sure, in hindsight. A lot of story elements in TV episodes of any show work better when they are laced into earlier episodes before being introduced as major elements, and also when they are followed up after their "star turn" episodes. That requires the staff to have the whole season mapped out, tacked up on the wall, with all the writing teams working together, keeping in touch with each other (and each other's story threads) even as they are going off to write separate episodes simultaneously...not an easy thing. When a show accomplishes this, applaud madly. It's HARD.

Those of you who were there probably have more of the facts, but I would guess that TPTB came up with the Season 3 war idea toward the end of their Season 2 writing period, as an attempt to buoy their ratings-challenged show. Probably they had no time to weave elements into the previous scripts. C'mon, in "The Expanse," Archer asks Trip (his friend of 10 years) if Lizzie is younger or older than he is. I'm thinking they wrote it quickly.

I thought the emotional path chosen for Trip--the shock of sudden loss, followed by a long period of denial, as unresolved emotion festered under the surface, salved by his work and his growing friendship with T'Pol, until Degra's presence finally brought it explosively to the surface--was very compelling and believable.

IMHO, the journey Trip was forced to take as a result of his sister's death matured him as a character. I don't think he was mopey or being a baby; his beloved sister had been murdered. For anyone who has suffered the loss of a loved one, Trip's behavior is probably credible--the helpless fury, the months of no sleep, the bad dreams, days or weeks of seeming normalcy followed by an unexpected reminder of the loss, with the sorrow or anger rushing back, overwhelmingly. The grief process is rocky and long-lasting. I think Trip did remarkably well under the circumstances.

 

[Harvey]

No one, to my knowledge, indicated they lost people in the attack, which seems weird: 7 million people is a lot of folks.

Compared to how many on Earth at that time? 10 billion? 7 million is a lot, but at the same time, it's just a drop in the bucket, statistically speaking. The NX-01 didn't have a large crew, so it makes sense that only one character would be affected, especially only one in the main cast.