A Look at Archer

[GreyICE]

So I have a strong theory that Enterprise was an attempt to remix a lot of the previous Trek characters, without much effort to really put them together in an interesting way. I think they were trying to give the writers room to write stories, but failed to create either a coherent crew, or a good writing team.

Archer: Captures the grumpiness and (over)confidence of early Picard.
T'Pol: The inhuman logic and comic foil provided by Data, as well as the failings of "reason over emotion"
Reed: Had much of the militarism of Worf, and the strong and heavy focus on weapons and combat
Trip: A revisit of Wesley, combining the sort of "wow this is space!" of his character with more cultural references.
Hoshi: A revisit of Uhura with communications being a real job, in theory. Is for some reason scared of everything, because Braga wanted space to be scary (I'll blame Berman for a lot, but Braga needs to take his lumps here).
Phlox: Wow, wacky doctor went over well on Voyager, lets revisit past success.
Mayweather: was not in the script originally, but the studio insisted they add a black actor. Character traits: TBD later (sometime around Season 5, I think).


Unfortunately most of the originality and optimism in the writing team was long gone, and Bakula can't turn a cake recipe into an epic speech unlike Sir Patrick Stewart. But really the way Bakula played Archer, he'd have been a lot better off on Lexx or Farscape.

Later they tried to make Archer more flawed by showing things not working out for him, which just made him look even more deranged than his early deranged behavior. I have trouble taking him as a coherent character portrait, because I don't think Bakula had the first idea how he was supposed to be as a character, and the writers were of the same help they were on Voyager (none).

[CrypticMirror]

Unfortunately most of the originality and optimism in the writing team was long gone, and Bakula can't turn a cake recipe into an epic speech unlike Sir Patrick Stewart. But really the way Bakula played Archer, he'd have been a lot better off on Lexx or Farscape.

Later they tried to make Archer more flawed by showing things not working out for him, which just made him look even more deranged than his early deranged behavior. I have trouble taking him as a coherent character portrait, because I don't think Bakula had the first idea how he was supposed to be as a character, and the writers were of the same help they were on Voyager (none).

Part of the problem is they didn't acknowledge Bakula's acting strengths. He does great "out of his depth everyman" acting, his quiet moments are his best moments. That was part of the reason he was so great in Quantum Leap, for all of Sam's intelligence, he was out of his depth and relied on the help of Al and his own innate humility. In Enterprise, the writers/producers refused to have Archer acknowledge he was out of his depth. Instead of the moral compass, which Bakula is great at emoting, ENT substituted priggish pride instead. Bakula did his best, but when the script is fighting the actor nobody can turn that around. Even the worst of early Picard or Janeway left Stewart and Mulgrew some leeway in how to deliver their performances, ENT made Bakula's Archer so damn rigid in fitting into the script and it showed.

Play to your actor's strengths, not his weaknesses.

[GreyICE]

Part of the problem is they didn't acknowledge Bakula's acting strengths. He does great "out of his depth everyman" acting, his quiet moments are his best moments. That was part of the reason he was so great in Quantum Leap, for all of Sam's intelligence, he was out of his depth and relied on the help of Al and his own innate humility. In Enterprise, the writers/producers refused to have Archer acknowledge he was out of his depth. Instead of the moral compass, which Bakula is great at emoting, ENT substituted priggish pride instead. Bakula did his best, but when the script is fighting the actor nobody can turn that around. Even the worst of early Picard or Janeway left Stewart and Mulgrew some leeway in how to deliver their performances, ENT made Bakula's Archer so damn rigid in fitting into the script and it showed.

Play to your actor's strengths, not his weaknesses.

I think also "match your character with your actor's strengths." That sort of quiet moral compass would work great on a doctor character, maybe arguing with a more militant "shoot first, ask questions while shooting" character. You could even have his moral perspective, T'Pol's "maximum utility logic" perspective, and a very militaristic "everything is a threat" perspective (with Hoshi providing... mostly tears, I think). Unfortunately they decided that Bakula would make a great captain, and boy that went awful.

I know that according to Braga they only ever considered Bakula for the part so... those fucking idiots.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Archer is a steampunk version of Kirk like Enterprise is steampunk TOS.

My guess is he's supposed to be more inspired by an astronaut or someone you'd expect to see trained by NASA and embodying someone that was trained physically but also a bit over the hill with his aspirational side and age.

[Link8909]

Part of the problem is they didn't acknowledge Bakula's acting strengths. He does great "out of his depth everyman" acting, his quiet moments are his best moments. That was part of the reason he was so great in Quantum Leap, for all of Sam's intelligence, he was out of his depth and relied on the help of Al and his own innate humility. In Enterprise, the writers/producers refused to have Archer acknowledge he was out of his depth. Instead of the moral compass, which Bakula is great at emoting, ENT substituted priggish pride instead. Bakula did his best, but when the script is fighting the actor nobody can turn that around. Even the worst of early Picard or Janeway left Stewart and Mulgrew some leeway in how to deliver their performances, ENT made Bakula's Archer so damn rigid in fitting into the script and it showed.

Play to your actor's strengths, not his weaknesses.

I think also "match your character with your actor's strengths." That sort of quiet moral compass would work great on a doctor character, maybe arguing with a more militant "shoot first, ask questions while shooting" character. You could even have his moral perspective, T'Pol's "maximum utility logic" perspective, and a very militaristic "everything is a threat" perspective (with Hoshi providing... mostly tears, I think). Unfortunately they decided that Bakula would make a great captain, and boy that went awful.

I know that according to Braga they only ever considered Bakula for the part so... those fucking idiots.

Pretty much, I feel for Scott Bakula, he seemed to always look stiff, unconfutable, or just outright confused, even the picture Chuck used for the video shows Archer mid "huh?"

As you say, Scott Bakula is a great actor, but he just wasn't directed well and his character was written poorly and none of it played to his strengths as an actor, him playing a Doctor sounds really interesting though.

[Link8909]

Archer is a steampunk version of Kirk like Enterprise is steampunk TOS.

My guess is he's supposed to be more inspired by an astronaut or someone you'd expect to see trained by NASA and embodying someone that was trained physically but also a bit over the hill with his aspirational side and age.

I really wished they had pushed more on the astronaut angle for Star Trek Enterprise, completely get rid of the Transporters, Phasers, and Viewscreens, show them conducting experiments onboard, they could have even had a sort of Ground Control, have a second mini cast of characters that regularly help the NX crew from Earth.

[Zatman]

I think the biggest problem with Enterprise was it began too early, 2151 is too far from 2161 to be able to tell a meaningful founding of the Federation story without some degree of pointless meandering. Had they started in 2153, about the time of season 3, things could have been better. Maybe condense the Xindi plot a little, and expand it to be a threat to Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarites, and Orions thus sowing the seeds of the Coalition of Planets.

Spend half a season on the chaos of the attacks, with a political thriller element, thus necessitating the launch of NX-01 to figure out who's behind them. Then at the mid-season, have a dramatic confrontation between the Vulcans, Andorians, Tellarite, and Orions all blaming each other, while Enterprise swoops in and reveals who's really behind it while weaving in just a little of the temporal cold war. The Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites decide to follow the lead of Enterprise under Archer as Earth is fairly neutral, while the Orions take the information and go off on their own to not only stop the threat, but try and acquire the technology to dominate everyone else.

The season cliffhanger is another dramatic confrontation, this time between the proto-Coalition forces, and an Orion/Xindi alliance (bought and paid for by the Orions). But the Xindi listen to Archer's diplomatic overtures, while the Orions rebuff, and start an attack. The Xindi realize the Federation isn't a threat, and turn on the Orions. But the Orions have stolen Xindi tech and end up largely scattering the Xindi (which is why we don't hear much from them later). The Coalition forces resolve to aid the Xindi, while the fleet returns to friendly space. Gruff remarks are shared by the three main powers, but the hope for peace is really there.

The next season is something of a more Treky breather, with exploration and first contact with other notable Trek species and characters. All of this though is done on the backdrop of ongoing talks to form the Coalition with many episodes dealing with little side stories among the members, but that all connect with overall cooperation. Mid-season, dramatically bring the Klingons to Earth after Enterprise stumbled on a Klingon colony a few episodes before. An appeal to the Vulcans and Andorians is answered and amidst the battle, Enterprise saves a Klingon crew from a dishonorable death from a warp core malfunction and a cease-fire is called. The Klingons don't promise peace, but they don't promise war either and leave.

Thanks again to Earth's ability to show compassion, and end threats without just fighting it out, the Coaliion of planets begins to seriously take shape. At the end of the season, a mysterious winged ship enters a solar system, we see an Earth colony world, with a Vulcan, Andorian, and Tellarite presence. The city erupts in a nuclear explosion, and the ship glides out of the solar system, but not before we see its underside, and the Bird of Prey painted on it.

The problem with Enterprise and Archer specifically, is the writers couldn't do anything with them that would be worth viewing on TV every week. They were stuck, do too much, and you destroy continuity, do too little...and you get the mediocrity that we ended up with for season 1 and 2. Randomly poking around on random planets as part of exploration was certainly done, certainly had dangers, trials, challenges, but the vast majority simply isn't worth watching more than maybe once. Between 2151 and 2155, there weren't any moments that Archer could define himself, except maybe first contact with the Klingons which we know wasn't great as from Picard's line in um, TNG's "First Contact" episode: "centuries ago, disastrous contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war." That could be woven in too, but leave it something of a cold war so you don't take away from the Romulan War.

[CharlesPhipps]

I really wished they had pushed more on the astronaut angle for Star Trek Enterprise, completely get rid of the Transporters, Phasers, and Viewscreens, show them conducting experiments onboard, they could have even had a sort of Ground Control, have a second mini cast of characters that regularly help the NX crew from Earth.

Basically, the problem is the networks just wanted more Star Trek so there was the issue of, "How do we do this without feeling different?"

Which is a bad place to be.

Mind you, the writers were also an issue as plenty apparently had no interest in anything but writing TNG. Ron Moore basically said, "I was disgusted with the writer's room who actively resented having to write characters and situations different than a show that had been off the air for years."

[Link8909]

Basically, the problem is the networks just wanted more Star Trek so there was the issue of, "How do we do this without feeling different?"

Which is a bad place to be.

Mind you, the writers were also an issue as plenty apparently had no interest in anything but writing TNG. Ron Moore basically said, "I was disgusted with the writer's room who actively resented having to write characters and situations different than a show that had been off the air for years."

Indeed, Deep Space Nine is praised not only for it's different setting, but for willing to tell much different types of stories from The Next Generation and push what Star Trek could do, honestly I think Star Trek Enterprise could have done with fresh writers and directors, and given them free rain to be creative.

[Riedquat]

I really wished they had pushed more on the astronaut angle for Star Trek Enterprise, completely get rid of the Transporters, Phasers, and Viewscreens, show them conducting experiments onboard, they could have even had a sort of Ground Control, have a second mini cast of characters that regularly help the NX crew from Earth.

Definitely. Some of its better moments came from "this is really new to us." That said I think being completely cut off from Earth, comms having not kept up with the ship speed, would also have worked well - if TOS was Hornblower in space then ENT could've been the age of exploration in space (the only bit it did there was the newcomers screwing up the natives in Dear Doctor).