Triaxiansilk.com

Transwarp wrote:The writers made me despair, the actors made me care.

Yip - same with me. Let's see: season one: seven - season two: four-five - season three: 8,5! season 4: 7 and because season 4 pulled me in the wonderful world of TnT and fanfic and you lovely people: I give the show an overall of eight!

What about reviewing every episode of ENT by given them a grade (and telling us why in three sentences!) Or do you think this idea is

I go along with the Witers make me despair and I do love most of the actors. Especially Conner and Jolene. Linda and Dom are right up there.

It is futile to wonder who could have played Archer better than Bakkula, just about anyone. I am sorry but his acting was so wooden in many episodes. I have believed for a long time that Jolene had the hardest role of all. she had to show her emotions through body language, her eyes and her voice. She was not allowed to use facial expressions which are so important toan actor.

I have a love/hate relationship with Enterprise. There are a few episodes that I like, many I don't care for and a few I despise. NOt unusual I believe

Desert crossing is one I despise. Trip (Conner) really got worked er in that episode. As T'Pol/Jolene was in the Seventh

SB

panyasan wrote:What about reviewing every episode of ENT by given them a grade (and telling us why in three sentences!) Or do you think this idea is

No, it's a great idea, although it can instill a little fear, because ... Well, I'm afraid to end up being slightly 'bad' about the various episodes.
Come on, Panyasan! Give us the La (to clarify, if needed: La is the note that you use to tune an instrument, so it's something that you would say when you start.)

I am stuck on 7 for the show. I just can't get past the Archer character and the effort the writers put in to make him Bill Shatner . Given that the other six main characters had to play off of him, they were terrific. The guest stars were wonderful as well. Phlox's looney wife, Shran, Syran, especially Degra. Hell even Dolim was good. The list goes on. Oops forgot Soval.
Perhaps it is just as well looking back they gave us so much fertile ground especially the AU stuff. Rigels DP and now Alelou's NS. The bad writing in the show almost encourages the truly talented to go in their own direction.

><((((º> hee hee

Weebie, Shatner was just different. He was a better actor but he got stuck in those episodes where everything was from the Raunch. He was always a bit Horny.

That and the Red Shirt Syndrome.

TOS was lucky that it had Spock and McCoy. Trip was noy given the Good episodes he could sink his teeth into. Nimoy got a couple or he created them out of whole cloth. Conner was hand cuffed. Nimoy had more latitude. Nimoy was so dynamic that he shoved Kirk aside tomake room for his chaacter.Conner never got that chance. He was made too weak.

The characters in TOS were not there just to make Kirk look good. Unfortunately the characters in Enterprise were cardboard cutouts whose sole purpose was to enhance Archer.

Bakkula couldn't make Archer strong enough so the effort of the others failed.

The Captains in Star Tek were for the most part a miserable lot. Thank God for the supporting Cast in each series

SB

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with the statement that William Shatner is a better actor than Scott Bakula.

That I do disagree with, Dis. Everybody is a better actor than Scott Bakula. That man had a whole arsenal of a whooping three different face expressions throughout the whole show. His acting was so wooden, he made Pinocchio look wobbly.

Dis, did you ever see Shatner in Andersonville? He was very good in that. I highly doubt if Bakkula could have played that role.

I have often felt that Bakkula played on what looks he had. But looks can't replace talent. As many pretty boys in Hollywood has learned.

Revelation time: I have disliked some actors but Bakkula is the ony one Ihave ever hated. The guy gets my back up every time I see him.

I believe one of the problems was that Bakkula knew he was the first and only choice of the killer B's so he had no worry that he might have been killed off and replaced no matter how lousy he was.

I was once ready to sell my shabby soul to the Devil if he could arrange for Archer ot get bumped off and out of the show.

Jst Trippn is going to be all over me. She is devoted to Bakkula/Archer

SB

Gotta agree with you Kotik. Shatner ran with his role. Certainly DeForest and Leonard played their roles fabulously, but this is not a discussion about that. Sorry Dis, but Scott B. has just never impressed me. He wasn't believable in Enterprise. His character didn't exude leadership or maturity. I can't comment on his looks 'cause I notice the fairer sex first ok and last and well always....

Go watch Quantum Leap on Hulu, guys. Enterprise was a problem with the writing, not Scott's acting.

Here's how I think of Enterprise:

Series concept: 8

I liked the basic concept of the series. Not because it's a prequel but because everything is supposed to be new and unknown. There should be a lot of elbow room in the galaxy that they're heading out into. There's room to make mistakes and room to learn.

Unfortunately, that got blown out by episode 7 when the Vulcan database (or T'Michelin guide) gets introduced.

Characters: 9

I liked them. I even liked Archer though Archer, if you subtract Bakkula, is pretty unlikeable. I agree that Bakkula is terrible at playing angry or stressed but he has that basic nice guy goofiness underneath it all that made Archer bearable. I'm not sure that another actor would have done better with the character because the character, as written, is an idiot far, far too often.

Actual show: 6

While I was working my way through the episodes I looked forward to seeing each new one, probably because I was looking for the "good" episodes that would redeem the show. There were very few of those for me. I'm not that interested in rewatching most of the episodes at this point.

The funny thing is that I never had an urge to write additional material for any of the other shows that I've watched. I could come up with a new episode for TOS but there wasn't a real NEED to. The way that ENT broke both the concept and the characters annoyed me so badly that I HAD to fix it.

Look, Putaro. I am very grateful to you for this post on your part, because it has spared to me any effort to express what I think of Enterprise (really everything) and of everything else, including - as you say - the pressing need that I felt to fix the show, while such a imperious desire has never occurred to my mind for any other show of Star Trek.

The only small, slight, tiny difference lies in what I feel personally about Archer as a character and about Bakula as an actor.
In this regard I nourish ideas ... how to say? ... a bit less gentle and favourable.

But I must admit that in addition to the undeniable personal idiosyncrasy that I feel for the character of Archer (which evidently, also judging by the opinions of others, possesses a certain level of objectivity), it plays, in my judgment about Bakula, also a clear dislike for him. I just do not like Bakula, neither as a man, nor as an actor.
It comes to something that we, in Italy, express with the locution "a pelle", "at skin". I believe that this is a locution sufficiently clear and expressive in its meaning.

After watching Enterprise I'm full of admiration for Brent Spiner. He made Data quite likeable in TNG, and I've seen some videos taken at Trek conventions that suggest he's a jovial and entertaining fellow when he isn't in character. (I suppose to some extent these people are always acting when they're in the public eye.) And yet he managed to make Soong believable as a character I positively disliked and wanted to see pushed out of an air lock.

I have a similar admiration for Bakula. I thought he did a good job on Quantum Leap and came across as a thoroughly likeable guy that I could relate to - out-takes from the Enterprise sets suggest that he's got a similar light-hearted and jovial attitude when he was working on Enterprise. And yet he manages to make Archer a thoroughly unpleasant character - arrogant, dismissive, petulant, selfish, incompetent in many respects, resorting to anger at the slightest obstacle. Nepotism is the only reason I can think of for a character like that to be put in command. I suppose the writers would probably describe him as strong willed, a man who'll do what it takes to get the job done, won't suffer fools gladly and so on. But to my mind his character conveyed the very worst traits for somebody put in charge of a starship and responsible for looking after his crew. And who the hell wants to relate to a captain who is acting like a pillock all the time?

Being a workaholic insomniac engineer I suppose it's natural that I would relate more strongly with Trip, but aside from that I found him a much stronger and more believable character, and much more likeable than Archer. Or rather, likeable in a way that Archer simply wasn't.

I can understand the writers wanting to make Soong unpleasant and unlikeable. But I'm baffled by the way they did the same with Archer. I can't help thinking that the appalling mess they made of Archer's character is what killed the show. (They didn't do any of the other characters any favours, either, but ongoing character assassination of their leading character is surely commercial suicide.)

I guess you either like Archer or you don't. Doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

On another board someone commented that He would never want Archer as a commanding Officer. That Archer was simply out of his depth.

I have been on other boards where Archer has been discussed. Mostly the character is not liked and found wanting.

Writers? Bakkula? or Both?

The fact that Archer could never delegate (writers apparently would not let him, he was the Hero after all) So Archer took the suicide mission He led away missions. For god's sake he is the Captain he should stay on board and let his subordinates take the risks that is why they are there.

I know, Kirk did the smae thing but for hi it was chasing a female. Spocks character was strong enough to tone down Kirk.

In TNG Picard had his second in command Riker who usually took the away missions. Also Data was a very strong character which allowed Picard to blend in with the scenary.

Back to the Forge. I have the ARC on DVD and once had it on my DVR. I won't watch the shows simply because of Archer. I have always thought that if any one carried Surak's Katra it should have been T'POl. But Super Archer got it. Also Super Archer beat the crap out of three Vulcan commando's despite the Gravity and the thin atmosphere which Archer was not used to. The commandos undoubtedly were well trained but super Archer had no problem beating them. Trip, despite his dislike of deserts should have ccompanied T'Pol in her search for her mother. T'Pol would have taken care of Trip as she did Archer.

SB

Much of what I've read here about Archer I can agree with, although I attribute most of the failures of the character to the writing, not to any deficit in Bakula's acting ability. I've seen him in other roles where he excelled -- 'Quantum Leap' and the movie 'Necessary Roughness' come to mind.

As for who should have gone on the mission into the Forge? I dunno. Typically, I would say ANYONE but the Captain or Chief Engineer. T'Pol had to go, of course. She was the only Vulcan on the crew and it was her mother that told them where to look in the first place. Given that the mission was in violation of their orders, I can see why Archer would volunteer himself, rather than put anyone else's career in jeopardy.