captain archer / scott bakula - can't stand his acting

[DocCrusher]

Is there anyone else out there who found scott bakula to be very 2 dimensional as an actor (always the same expressions & none of the qualities you see of a decent actor who plays a captain well), to a point he was irritating to watch? There are so many scenes where he came across as smug & foolish (down to the way the actor played the part).

Then I remember back to quantum leap, and he acted exactly the same in that- quite rigid & repetetive.. it seemed to work in that show but even back then as a kid I found him quite boring to watch even though the idea of quantum leap was great and scripts were great.

I realise by this point there will be many hard core enterprise fans who like him & all the ones like me won't bother frequenting this side of the forum, but I really wish the production team had chosen a lesser known actor for their acting ability & suitability for the role as opposed to a celebrity for the sake of his status.

 

[DocCrusher]

having said that, I did manage to put up with him & get through the whole of enterprise.. if only for missing the star trek universe after seeing TNG, Voy & DS9 5 times each lol

 

[marlboro]

I like Scott Bakula. He has an innate likability. I don't think he's wooden at all. However, I don't think he has a commanding voice which makes it hard to play certain characters. He's perfect for playing a character who loves exploration and flight and is genuinely awed by the majesty of space. His weakest moments are when he has to be a be a be authoritative or intimidating. Overall, I think his acting ability is on par with all of the other Trek captains outside of Patrick Stewart.

Oddly enough, I think Bakula would have been great as Trip. You would need to drop the pointless southern accent, of course. Bakula as Trip with Keith Carradine playing A.G. Robinson as the Captain, maybe? I don't know.

 

[DocCrusher]

Then I guess we have to agree to disagree.. I felt he made a very very poor captain, the worst of all of them, and that he let the show down. Trip would have made a better captain than him- that actor was far more 3 dimensional.

 

[ItIsGreen]

I like Scott Bakula just fine, I just don't like him as Archer. I think Marlboro nailed it on the head, he can't do authoritative. Sam Beckett was a scientist and constantly bewildered and relying on direction from Al most of the time. In ENT, Archer's the head honcho and I just don't buy him as a leader.

 

[Emperor Norton]

Scott Bakula is a fine actor. The problem, as was the common problem of that era of the franchise (as said by the actors themselves) is that they were there to play ball and give 110 percent, but were not given material deserving of how much they were willing to, wanted to, or asked to invest. Bakula could only play the character as it was written. It's not his fault. Scott Bakula should have been given a character like Sam Beckett in Archer: a really positive, nice guy, with all the dreams of what space exploration would be, but often overwhelmed by what it really is like out there, but who pulls it through because he's just a decent guy and learns from those experiences.

 

[F. King Daniel]

While Bakula is a good actor, the writing did it's best to make him a naive fool for the first two seasons.

Making him captain because his Daddy designed the warp 5 engine doesn't exactly engender sympathy, either.

Captain Lorca would have eaten him alive.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

He was one of the biggest disappointments of the whole series.

 

[DocCrusher]

I like Scott Bakula just fine, I just don't like him as Archer. I think Marlboro nailed it on the head, he can't do authoritative. Sam Beckett was a scientist and constantly bewildered and relying on direction from Al most of the time. In ENT, Archer's the head honcho and I just don't buy him as a leader.

I guess you're right

He was one of the biggest disappointments of the whole series.

agreed

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Scott Bakula is a fine actor. The problem, as was the common problem of that era of the franchise (as said by the actors themselves) is that they were there to play ball and give 110 percent, but were not given material deserving of how much they were willing to, wanted to, or asked to invest. Bakula could only play the character as it was written. It's not his fault. Scott Bakula should have been given a character like Sam Beckett in Archer: a really positive, nice guy, with all the dreams of what space exploration would be, but often overwhelmed by what it really is like out there, but who pulls it through because he's just a decent guy and learns from those experiences.

I agree with this! I think Bakula has loads of talent, demonstrated in QL. His strength comes from his idealism and compassion, and that part of Archer worked best, I think - the hopeful, good-natured explorer. The show is about Archer's disillusionment, and his trial by fire during the Xindi war. He comes through it stronger, but scarred, less naively optimistic. I found that journey really compelling. I mean, look at him in "Similitude," "Damage," and "Zero Hour."

I also agree that the writing staff did Bakula a terrible disservice by writing Archer wildly inconsistently and not taking proper advantage of his strengths, which made some fans love Archer and others despise him. I believe Bakula did the best he could with what he was given, and he had some outstanding episodes, such as those three I mentioned above. I focused on the well-written Archer, he worked for me.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Never had an issue with Bakula, but the writing of his character was so awfully handled. I'm currently rewatching the beginning of the first season and it's just incredible how stupid Archer comes off in episodes like "Strange New World". Everything that goes wrong in that episode is all because of a dumb decision Archer makes, yet at no point does the episode ever bring up that point. This whole exchange just highlights it.

T'POL: Captain. There are a number of protocols you may want to consider.
ARCHER: Protocols.
T'POL: Vulcan ships would begin by sending automated probes down to collect more detailed scans. If the planet proved to be Minshara-class, we would then conduct a geophysical survey from orbit.
TRAVIS: Minshara-class?
HOSHI: Suitable for humanoid life.
ARCHER: How long would all that take?
T'POL: Six or seven days.
TUCKER: (still at the door) You expect us to sit up here for a week while probes have all the fun?
T'POL: This planet has been here a long time. It will still be here in seven days.
ARCHER: I understand that you have a more cautious approach, but we didn't come out here to tip-toe around. (to Tucker) Get the pod ready.
(Tucker leaves.)
ARCHER: I'd like you to put together the survey team. I assume that's not a violation of protocol?

So not only does Archer come off as an idiot but apparently Starfleet never came up with protocols? The captain just wings it?

 

[GNDN18]

Starfleet never came up with protocols?

That explains a lot. I never warmed to ENT because the first season featured an amateur-hour group of adventurers spouting lines better suited to Salvage I.

I understand that Apollo 13 was only a movie, but the word “procedure” was used 23 times in the script. If protocols were standard for NASA….

 

[iliescu]

It is decent, rises up to the alien challenge with an under power ship to prove the crew is more than the technology being utilize is what here understood.

 

[Anna Yolei]

As others have said, Bakula got a double whammy from both incosistent writing and being miscast for the "Kirk's childhood hero" they had in mind. And while certain parts of fandom may have gained an appreciation for having a privileged wyboi blaming his shortcomings on alients stealing Murican jobs, it's not something that Trek needs to repeat.

 

[marlboro]

And while certain parts of fandom may have gained an appreciation for having a privileged wyboi blaming his shortcomings on alients stealing Murican jobs, it's not something that Trek needs to repeat.

WTF?

 

[Long Syntax]

I guess my viewpoint will make me a hardcore ENT fan, but no, Bakula did a great job of portraying the first Captain of the Enterprise. The character was supposed to show how, although we were technically able to take the initial first steps into the cosmos, we still had some arrogance and foolishness to work through as we took those steps. I'm sorry that point was lost on you as I believe it impacted your viewing experience.

 

[Long Syntax]

As others have said, Bakula got a double whammy from both incosistent writing and being miscast for the "Kirk's childhood hero" they had in mind. And while certain parts of fandom may have gained an appreciation for having a privileged wyboi blaming his shortcomings on alients stealing Murican jobs, it's not something that Trek needs to repeat.

I'll just add you in the "not a Bakula fan" category and ignore the misplaced politics.

 

[saladdays]

As others have said, Bakula got a double whammy from both incosistent writing and being miscast for the "Kirk's childhood hero" they had in mind. And while certain parts of fandom may have gained an appreciation for having a privileged wyboi blaming his shortcomings on alients stealing Murican jobs, it's not something that Trek needs to repeat.

What is this I don't even

 

[Tenacity]

You would need to drop the pointless southern accent

Could you explain what's pointless about a southern accent (perhaps bearing in mind I have one), Bakula has shown in NCIS New Orleans that he can deliver dialog employing a fine southern accent.

Scott Bakula should have been given a character like Sam Beckett in Archer: a really positive, nice guy, with all the dreams of what space exploration would be

Combine that with being in command of a purely civilian, unarmed starship. Instead of a armed, military structured starship. Make it a clean break.

The captain just wings it?

One of my big problems with ENT in general, most of the time they don't appear to have a well defined mission. Given that the Enterprise is supposed to be the first fast moving, dedicated exploration ship, you'd think their days would be scheduled down to the second. With clear destinations, and goals to accomplish.

Instead, a lot of the time the Enterprise is just wondering around, and doing things at the whim of it's captain.

It would be interesting to have a scene with Admiral Forrest testifying before a congressional committee, as to what all that tax payer money is doing at the moment.

Admiral Forrest: "Well ... just a few days ago, Captain Archer took his dog down to a planet so that it could pee."

As others have said, Bakula got a double whammy from both incosistent writing and being miscast for the "Kirk's childhood hero" they had in mind.

That was never my impression, the Kirk's childhood hero part. There no evidence that Kirk was a big fan of Archer, or look to Archer as a hero.

And while certain parts of fandom may have gained an appreciation for having a privileged wyboi

Archer was privileged?

blaming his shortcomings on alients stealing Murican jobs

Archer (in case you've never seen the show) had a problem with the Vulcans not making his father's job easier by simply dishing up vast amount of knowledge. Resulting in Archer's father having to do the work himself.

There's no suggestion that Vulcans were heavily employed in America, or any where else on Earth.

We heard of one Vulcan school teacher, and some diplomatic personnel.

it's not something that Trek needs to repeat.

What's something that Trek doesn't need to be repeated?

Also a non human character should challenge the term 'humanoid', cos its speciest.

Hopefully in the future political correctness will be long forgotten.

 

[marlboro]

"Could you explain what's pointless about a southern accent"

Trip being from the south doesn't seem to be of any real importance to the character. So making an actors job more difficult by making him speak with an accent seems counterproductive to me.