• 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!

Would like to see Enterprise come back…

Although I would appreciate any allusion to Enterprise and would absolutely love seeing the characters again, what would be enough to make me happy would be a Lower Decks reference to the cut-rate holoprogram Riker was watching. They don’t need to specify what wasn’t historically accurate, just mention that it didn’t get the facts straight and I’ll be grinning.
 
Last edited:
I rewatched "Cease Fire" last night after having recently rewatched several S1 episodes, and all I can say is...

If they were to revive ENT, I hope Scott Bakula doesn't come back.

I know the cast and crew all loved him, but I fundamentally do not enjoy Bakula's performance. The writing didn't do him any favors, but he constantly found bad line reads and made bad acting choices. Even when the writing wasn't awful, he consistently found a way to make acting choices that caused Archer to come across as an incompetent dumbass.
 
I know the cast and crew all loved him, but I fundamentally do not enjoy Bakula's performance. The writing didn't do him any favors, but he constantly found bad line reads and made bad acting choices. Even when the writing wasn't awful, he consistently found a way to make acting choices that caused Archer to come across as an incompetent dumbass.

Not to say you're wrong, after all it's all subjective, but I couldn't disagree more.... I find Bakula's Archer is probably the most consistently 'human' of all the Trek captains and the very beating heart of the show.

As I say, by no means am I picking a fight, but it's interesting how polarising this show can still be twenty years down the line...
 
I have to agree with the commentary I (20 years late with Starbucks) am currently combing through, Bakula isn’t naturally adept at playing a space cowboy role and should not have been written into the situation. I love Scott Bakula, my family religiously watched Quantum Leap together, and I am throwing no shade to say his captaincy should not be a rehash of anyone else’s.

I’m all for glossing over some of his characterization as the trappings of historical fiction. Why not use that shoehorned in holoprogram constructively? Some of what we, the viewers, saw was punched up to keep school kids interested in dusty old history. Then, if Archer is brought back, write to Bakula’s strengths.
 
I rewatched "Cease Fire" last night after having recently rewatched several S1 episodes, and all I can say is...

If they were to revive ENT, I hope Scott Bakula doesn't come back.

I know the cast and crew all loved him, but I fundamentally do not enjoy Bakula's performance. The writing didn't do him any favors, but he constantly found bad line reads and made bad acting choices. Even when the writing wasn't awful, he consistently found a way to make acting choices that caused Archer to come across as an incompetent dumbass.

Couldn't agree more.

I loved Scott Bakula in Quantum Leap and was excited when he was announced as the new captain. That excitement faded quickly. Whether it was the writing and direction he received or his take on the character doesn't matter. It just didn't work for me. I've watched ENT all the way through, from Broken Bow to Demons/Terra Prime three times and favourite episodes more than that.

The best I can say about Bakula's work as Archer is that... I sort of got used to it.

That said, ENT ain't coming back. Even if TPTB said "Yes" Jolene is long done with acting and doesn't need the work.
 
I know the cast and crew all loved him, but I fundamentally do not enjoy Bakula's performance. The writing didn't do him any favors, but he constantly found bad line reads and made bad acting choices. Even when the writing wasn't awful, he consistently found a way to make acting choices that caused Archer to come across as an incompetent dumbass.

I too did not care for Bakula as Archer, although I loved him in Quantum Leap. I simply don't think the writers knew what to do with the Archer character. He was supposed to be more brash and impulsive (which was meant to show how imperfect he was), but too often his behavior just ended up being the correct decision, and he was never once admonished for his actions.
 
Not to say you're wrong, after all it's all subjective, but I couldn't disagree more.... I find Bakula's Archer is probably the most consistently 'human' of all the Trek captains and the very beating heart of the show.

As I say, by no means am I picking a fight, but it's interesting how polarising this show can still be twenty years down the line...

No worries. I didn't take it as you trying to pick a fight. I'm glad his performance works for you.

This is just to illustrate some of the frustrations I have with Bakula's acting choices, not to pick a fight, but I found myself comparing his acting choices to those of Joel Kinnaman playing the character of Ed Baldwin on For All Mankind. Baldwin and Archer are similar characters in some ways -- both have a background as experimental pilots, both spacefaring pioneers, and both can be hotheads sometimes. Bakula plays Archer's anger in these really large, telegraphed, playing-to-the-cheap-seats ways; you can do that sort of thing in acting for the camera, but it usually needs to be done in a way that's stylized, that somehow suggests a level of irony or self-awareness -- intentional camp. Bakula makes these choices that are just a bit too big for the camera IMO, but it does it without any irony or camp. The effect is that it comes across as uncontrolled anger -- he just seems like an immature person who can't regulate his own emotions.

Kinnaman, on the other hand, plays Baldwin's anger as something that simmers under the surface. When Ed Baldwin is angry, it has to build first before it explodes; he doesn't just go from zero to shouting in two seconds. There's also a level of steely resolve that Bakula can never quite muster in my eyes. To me, Bakula never really seems like a leader -- there's always this undercurrent of insecurity and indecisiveness to his performance, even though the text never acknowledges that insecurity or indecisiveness.

Finally... Bakula just does not have the vibe of a man who's been in a fight. He just does not come across as a tough guy. When he shouts at T'Pol, "You have no idea how much I'm restraining myself from knocking you on your ass" in "Broken Bow," it doesn't come across as a credible threat (unless Archer is in the habit of beating people who seem physically weaker than him). It comes across as petulance from someone who has never actually been in a fight with someone who can challenge him. I find myself not really believing that he's an experienced pilot; he just does not have the vibe or swagger of one. Kinnaman, by contrast, very much has the vibe of someone who's been in a fight and can hold his own.

Basically, in a lot of ways, Ed Baldwin on For All Mankind is the character Jonathan Archer should have been, and Kinnaman is giving the performance Bakula should have given.
 
Basically, in a lot of ways, Ed Baldwin on For All Mankind is the character Jonathan Archer should have been, and Kinnaman is giving the performance Bakula should have given.

That’s a really interesting way of putting it and I don’t totally disagree. In many ways, For All Mankind is kind of the show that Enterprise should have been, I guess. Thanks for the clarification, Sci.
 
This is just to illustrate some of the frustrations I have with Bakula's acting choices, not to pick a fight, but I found myself comparing his acting choices to those of Joel Kinnaman playing the character of Ed Baldwin on For All Mankind. Baldwin and Archer are similar characters in some ways -- both have a background as experimental pilots, both spacefaring pioneers, and both can be hotheads sometimes. Bakula plays Archer's anger in these really large, telegraphed, playing-to-the-cheap-seats ways; you can do that sort of thing in acting for the camera, but it usually needs to be done in a way that's stylized, that somehow suggests a level of irony or self-awareness -- intentional camp. Bakula makes these choices that are just a bit too big for the camera IMO, but it does it without any irony or camp. The effect is that it comes across as uncontrolled anger -- he just seems like an immature person who can't regulate his own emotions.

Kinnaman, on the other hand, plays Baldwin's anger as something that simmers under the surface. When Ed Baldwin is angry, it has to build first before it explodes; he doesn't just go from zero to shouting in two seconds. There's also a level of steely resolve that Bakula can never quite muster in my eyes. To me, Bakula never really seems like a leader -- there's always this undercurrent of insecurity and indecisiveness to his performance, even though the text never acknowledges that insecurity or indecisiveness.

Finally... Bakula just does not have the vibe of a man who's been in a fight. He just does not come across as a tough guy. When he shouts at T'Pol, "You have no idea how much I'm restraining myself from knocking you on your ass" in "Broken Bow," it doesn't come across as a credible threat (unless Archer is in the habit of beating people who seem physically weaker than him). It comes across as petulance from someone who has never actually been in a fight with someone who can challenge him. I find myself not really believing that he's an experienced pilot; he just does not have the vibe or swagger of one. Kinnaman, by contrast, very much has the vibe of someone who's been in a fight and can hold his own.

Basically, in a lot of ways, Ed Baldwin on For All Mankind is the character Jonathan Archer should have been, and Kinnaman is giving the performance Bakula should have given.

I would say Bakula played Mirror Archer better than Prime Archer. Apparently, he played Mirror Archer so well, it scared some of the crew. And what are the mirror universe crews but space pirates, space imperialists, and space fascists?

If this was known seasons earlier that Bakula played Archer very well in this scenario, who know how Archer the character in the prime universe would have turned out.

Of course, this plays into that IAMD is not a TNG or VOY clone and thus gives the cast more to work with in portraying not quite perfect humans.
 
I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the discussion, because everyone in the MU acts like a big over-the-top evil asshole, not just Archer. Are you saying that Prime Archer should have acted more like Mirror Archer?
 
I’m not quite sure what that has to do with the discussion, because everyone in the MU acts like a big over-the-top evil asshole, not just Archer. Are you saying that Prime Archer should have acted more like Mirror Archer?

What even is this post? Where do you get that Archer should be like his mirror counterpart from this?

I was clearly saying that Bakula could act when given a role and script not confined to the parameters of being a TNG or VOY clone. Which IAMD definitely was not, though that performance was a few years too late.

I get that the mid 22nd century in the prime universe is Earth’s early outing as a utopia and have jettisoned the worst aspects by then, and therefore its going to look like TNG. And I also get that that Archer was supposed to simultaneously be both John Wayne in space and be inexperienced, naive and indecisive. But he can’t be John Wayne one moment and then be whining that the galaxy is more rough and tumble than he thought the moment he encounters any adversity the next. Its makes him look wimpy. Wimpy is not a characteristic that describes any Starfleet captain, not even John “it will be here on Tuesday” Harriman.

Its not about being a space pirate or being an over-the-top asshole or having anger simmering underneath. Its about its about having a consistent character that works in the setting as defined by the show that the audience can buy.
 
I would say Bakula played Mirror Archer better than Prime Archer.

*shrugs* I mean, that was the one chance he got to inject a level of camp into his performance, so yeah, "In A Mirror, Darkly" represents the one time his tendency to make acting choices that are too big for the camera works. But I also think that that's not an appropriate acting style for a regular ENT episode.

What even is this post? Where do you get that Archer should be like his mirror counterpart from this?

I believe @Dukhat 's point was that acting choices that are appropriate for an intentionally-camp episode like "In A Mirror, Darkly" are not appropriate for a regular ENT episode.

I get that the mid 22nd century in the prime universe is Earth’s early outing as a utopia and have jettisoned the worst aspects by then, and therefore its going to look like TNG.

I'm a little puzzled by this statement. The early conflicts between Archer and T'Pol, and generally between Humans and Vulcans, are definitely supposed to signal to the audience that Earth is not a utopia yet and that the characters are not perfect.

And I also get that that Archer was supposed to simultaneously be both John Wayne in space and be inexperienced, naive and indecisive. But he can’t be John Wayne one moment and then be whining that the galaxy is more rough and tumble than he thought the moment he encounters any adversity the next. Its makes him look wimpy. Wimpy is not a characteristic that describes any Starfleet captain, not even John “it will be here on Tuesday” Harriman.

That is a very good point. I don't really think the John Wayne archetype is something Trek should perpetuate, but setting that aside, you cannot simultaneously be John Wayne and be inexperienced and whiny. The John Wayne archetype is built on the idea of being world-weary as a result of long and bitter experience. And whining is just not the sort of thing that inspires a feeling of leadership.
 
I'm a little puzzled by this statement. The early conflicts between Archer and T'Pol, and generally between Humans and Vulcans, are definitely supposed to signal to the audience that Earth is not a utopia yet and that the characters are not perfect.

If you say so.

For me, conflicts are still limited. Mainly between humans vs Vulcans, focusing mostly on Archer and Trip, less on Starfleet Command, and Sato after meeting T’Pol. Starfleet vs Earth freighters for a single episode in the first season. Starfleet Security vs MACOs in the third season, which is really Rede vs Hayes. And United Earth vs xenophobes for three episodes total in the fourth season, and only because of the Xindi attack in the second season finale. There’s no addiction or greed or profit driven motives or general procrastination, or someone so filled with anxiety over the transporter that they attempt to dismantle it piece by piece. They could be swapped out by a 24th century crew or even a 23rd century crew and no one would notice.

Whereas the MU is filled with mutinies, backstabbing, intrigue, brawls, and lust for power and conquest. Conflicts are a daily occurance.

This is not about wanting a mirror universe take. Its pointing out that interpersonal conflicts and personal flaws among the crew were not as significant for the show as they could have been.
 
Interpersonal conflicts were minimized a bit, even though there was a lot of potential for it. Mayweather growing up in space could have added a potential conflict with less seasoned personnel. Hoshi being uncertain could have worked well in the fact of Archer's desire to get out there and prove himself. T'Pol and Reed could have been in conflict simply because Reed sees violence as a necessary option, while T'Pol could find that reflective of humanity's difficulty in managing the conflicts out there.

But, instead it gets sidelined in favor of "we can solve this together" ideas.
 
Interpersonal conflicts were minimized a bit, even though there was a lot of potential for it. Mayweather growing up in space could have added a potential conflict with less seasoned personnel. Hoshi being uncertain could have worked well in the fact of Archer's desire to get out there and prove himself. T'Pol and Reed could have been in conflict simply because Reed sees violence as a necessary option, while T'Pol could find that reflective of humanity's difficulty in managing the conflicts out there.

But, instead it gets sidelined in favor of "we can solve this together" ideas.

Mayweather could have regularly sided with T’Pol opposite to the rest of the crew, using his past experiences as a space boomer as the basis for it, putting him at odds with his mentor Archer and his burgeoning friendships with Trip, Reed, and Hoshi. And ends help being a support system for T’Pol during her trellium addiction, after his experiences of encountering drug addicts on colony worlds.

Hoshi’s fear of the transporter could have led her attempt to dismantle it by hand and become a staunch advocate against it, and manages to get Phlox to support her position. While her hallucinations from using the transporter could have been a recurring condition for her that worsened over time and becomes a danger to the crew. But they also don’t want to pull her from service because she’s genuinely the best comms officer they have and no one else, human or Vulcan, compares to her.
 
Mayweather could have regularly sided with T’Pol opposite to the rest of the crew, using his past experiences as a space boomer as the basis for it, putting him at odds with his mentor Archer and his burgeoning friendships with Trip, Reed, and Hoshi. And ends help being a support system for T’Pol during her trellium addiction, after his experiences of encountering drug addicts on colony worlds.

Actually, Mayweather should have been the most important crew member on that ship, precisely because of his experience as a boomer. He should have been more knowledgeable about space than even the captain. But this knowledge was used precisely zero times, and he was shunted to the background worse than Chakotay.
 
Actually, Mayweather should have been the most important crew member on that ship, precisely because of his experience as a boomer. He should have been more knowledgeable about space than even the captain. But this knowledge was used precisely zero times, and he was shunted to the background worse than Chakotay.

He could have been both the most important crewmember and a regular ally of T'Pol.

I would hope that being in the VIP booth in the finale was a realization of his importance as a crewmember.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top