Scott Bakula On Fandom, Quantum Leap Future, & Enterprise Reference In Star Trek Movie |
jump to navigation

Scott Bakula On Fandom, Quantum Leap Future, & Enterprise Reference In Star Trek Movie September 22, 2009

by Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,ENT,Sci-Fi,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Scott Bakula, Captain Jonathan Archer on Star Trek: Enterprise, is out promoting his role in the new movie The Informant!, and in a new extensive interview he gets into what effect being part of Star Trek and Quantum Leap has had on his life, excerpts below. Bakula also says that he expects that he would not be involved in any future version of Quantum Leap. And in a separate video interview, Bakula talks about Quantum Leap, Chuck and more, including the Enterprise reference in the new Star Trek movie.

Bakula on fandom and turning down sci-fi
To many, especially genre fans, Scotty Bakula is best known for his roles on the sci-fi shows Quantum Leap and Star Trek Enterprise. In an extensive interview with Moviehole, the actor discusses fandom, and he has turned down more sci-fi roles.

Question: How was it for you dealing with some of those hard core fans from both of those show? I mean, the Trekkies are a bunch unto themselves.

Bakula: Yeah. Well, you know, science fiction fans, if they love you, they’re – you’ve got ’em.

Question: But God help you if they don’t.

Bakula: Well, they let you know, you know? And they don’t really – you know, they really don’t hang around if they don’t like you, because they’re just – if they’ve – if you’re in, you know, then you’re in forever. And they’re demanding fans. They expect that you be honest in your science fiction, and correct in your science fiction. And they expect you to be available, and a part of the world of science fiction. And they claim you. So, there’s kind of a responsibility about that. But I knew that. I knew when I took Enterprise that I was perpetuating that. But they’re loyal, and they ask you to be really good. And they really watch. And, you know, for a performer, that’s – you can’t really ask for more than that. They’re not casual. They’re intent. And you better have – you better not screw up your facts, your logic, they’ll ring you up on that one. And so – you know, that’s who you work for. We work for our fans, and for an audience. And so I love them. They’ve been great to me.

Question: Are you a fan of those genres yourself?

Bakula: I am. I look back now, it’s like, "How did I end up in all these science fiction things?" And then I look back at the stuff that I loved when I was a kid, and the TV shows that I liked, and the books that I liked and Ray Bradbury, and all the things that I loved reading. And then I say, "Well, you know, it’s kind of"- when I open up a script that says, "The guy – he wakes up and he’s in a bed, and nobody knows – he looks in a mirror and he’s somebody else, and they can’t figure it out, and this hologram appears," I’m just sucked right in. I’m not going, "This is stupid." I love it. So, it’s – I’m drawn to it. It’s hard for me to say no to science fiction stuff.

Question: Really?

Bakula: Which I have to do. You know? You just can’t – because – and people are always like, "Well, let’s send him a script about some sci-fi thing." Or, "Let’s write him another sci-fi show." And it’s like, "Well, hang on. I just can’t keep doing that over and over and over again." But to be in those two franchises have been just remarkable.

Read much more, including how expects he would be recast in any future version of Quantum Leap, at Moviehole.

Bakula on Archer reference in Star Trek
Bakula also talked to Collider, where he discussed The Informant, Quantum Leap, Chuck and more, including the reference to Archer (and Porthos) in the new Star Trek, of which Bakula stated:

Totally surprised by that, I didn’t see it coming. I bought a ticket and saw the movie with my boys and–it was so fast to be quite honest–I wasn’t sure that I heard it, because there was so much going on in that movie–great movie incidently, I thought they did a wonderful job–but I thought "did he just talk about my dog dying?" And the you are on to something else.



1. Chang's Gang - September 22, 2009


2. Brian from OR - September 23, 2009

One of the things that I loved in the novelization was the ending. And how a certain animal reappears on board the Enterprise. I wish they could have put that in the movie just has nod to the fans of Enterprise. But then again that does not mean they could have it roaming around the Enterprise next time around.

3. StevenPDX - September 23, 2009

I thought he was a great captain. I really enjoyed his tight-lipped stoicism, the way he managed his crew, and the way he grew during his mission. I was very sad to see this series end.

4. Dan - September 23, 2009

When and where was this referenced in the movie, what moment?

5. Valar1 - September 23, 2009

Great actor, lousy character. From day one, Archer was written as a bipolar nut job, one minute he’s emotionally raw and screaming at T’pol, the next he’s clowning around with Trip. In the 4 years that show was on, I can count on 1 hand the amount of times he was the calm cool person a captain should be. I wish him the best, but I wish the writers of Enterprise the worst.

6. Michelle - September 23, 2009

I love Scott Bakula, and I enjoyed his work in Quantum Leap so much. I was therefore disappointed when I watched Enterprise and found that I couldn’t like the Captain Archer character at all. I really blame the writers on this one. If *they* couldn’t figure out what Archer should be like, Bakula had no choice but to simply do the best he could with what was given to him.

7. Blake Powers - September 23, 2009

#4 it was referenced when Scotty was telling Kirk and Spock why he was on Delta Vega.
“I transported admiral archer’s prized beagle”
“What happened”
“I’ll tell you when he reappears” “Still feel bad about that one”

8. Sxottlan - September 23, 2009

It must be weird to go see a movie and suddenly the characters are talking about you.

9. Olley Olley Olley - September 23, 2009

“I “BOUGUTH a ticket and saw the movie with my boys”

spell check ftw

At least Scott made the effort to see it, Shatner, on the other hand, is obtuse.

10. AJ - September 23, 2009

I never watched Bakula on QL.

His “Archer” was stiff as a board, and when the show tried to “amp” him up for the Xindi arc, it was too obvious, like “who is THIS guy?” Also, absolutely no testosterone whatsoever,

None of the ENT characters really had decent arcs over the 4 years it ran. In the 4th year, they tried to solve everything, and they almost did. Except Archer.

11. Geoffers - September 23, 2009

I really liked the character of Archer, thought he was a great captain, and would loved to have seen him in cameo in the new movie..

12. Spockish - September 23, 2009

Did you ever think that they did (Enterprise creators) wanted a picture perfect captain. If they had Capt. Perfect it would have been hard for the public to think he was real. So he seemed stiff at times but how many of you have been around Military Academy Grads. They can seem hard and have a cold heart, this because they have been educated to go by the books, going by the heart will kill your future faster than thr book can.

I never really got worried or upset because he used logic before his heart. But just look at my name here and you’ll see why I reason logic over emotions. Being a scatter brained person with his heart on his sleeve may get you in bed more but to not have the emotions play with you, you need a strong heart and mind to get things done in the real world.

Who do you think would have won WW 2 faster, Patten or Hefner. I say Capt. Archer was closer to Patton then Hugh. But Archer may have had some oh Hef’s mags under his bed, but he was far to organized to let you and your cameras see them.

13. Admiral_BlackCat - September 23, 2009

I liked Capt. Archer and “Enterprise” as a whole.

14. Schultz - September 23, 2009

#5 (Valar1): Your character observations are absolutely correct. But that’s exactly why I liked Archer and Enterprise. He and the show were not typical. It was refreshing to see that after Voyager, which was a good show for other reasons, but it was… well, typical. :)

15. Jeffery Wright - September 23, 2009

Loved Enterprise, couldnt bear QL… total chick series.

I was very surprised to have loved him in the role of Archer, and was disappointed that he wasnt in the movie in some way.

Great that his character was mentioned, though, I thought that was very cool and one of the few redeeming aspects of the picture.

16. star trackie - September 23, 2009

Love Bakula and he was perfect in Quantum Leap. But his “down home” friendly demeanor just didn’t serve him well as a starship captain. Archer came off as a pretty lame captain, partially due to how he was written and also how he was played by Bakula. He just can’t convey authoriy convincingly. Not his fault, just poor casting.

17. CmdrR - September 23, 2009

All the best for Scott.

18. Tony Whitehead - September 23, 2009

not to nitpick, but in the Bakula quote:

“great movie, incidentally.”

I suppose I did nitpick. :-)

19. Jorg Sacul - September 23, 2009

I always saw Archer as an explorer at heart. He wasn’t a soldier, he’d much rather be out hoppin’ galaxies than zapping aliens. If his character seemed like a fish out of water at times, I think this is the reason.

20. leonel - September 23, 2009

I’m finding it a touch humorous he might have thought, “hey, they made me an admiral!”

21. leonel - September 23, 2009

*might not have*

22. Buzz Cagney - September 23, 2009

I rate Bakula but really didn’t like him at all in Enterprise. A very curious and uptight portrayal that just didn’t connect with me.
And I wish they hadn’t put the reference in Trek ’09. It leant a credibility to Enterprise that the show just didn’t deserve.

23. earthclanbootstrap - September 23, 2009

One of the things that I always felt rang true about the character was that he was far from the optimal star ship captain. That was kind of the whole point, really. The Vulcans didn’t want us out that far in space, and they were to an extent correct. The only reason that we were out that far was because he had pushed and pushed to get his daddy’s warp engine built, and maybe didn’t neccessarily have all of the skills going in to pull off the job of commanding the ship and it’s crew while simultaneously acting as Earth’s foremost emissary. A perfect captain would have been boring-same-old-no-conflict-predictable.

24. Dennis Bailey - September 23, 2009

Bakula is a class act – always has been.

25. Jorg Sacul - September 23, 2009

Scott… if you’re reading this… all your fans would love to see you at more conventions!

26. Rhett Coates - September 23, 2009

It also occured to me that the beaming experiment disapperance of “Admiral Archer’s prize beagle” might have been a future inspiration for Scotty to have [eventually] come up with that Loop idea to save himself and one other person when the Jenolan crashed on the Dyson Sphere…….

And yes, it would be amazing if the writers added Porthos (whatever generation he’d be by Kirk’s time) rematerializing somewhere in the next story, for whatever the reason. (Roberto? Alex?) It would be the last paragraph in the novel of ST09, used as one quick sequence in the following story. Would it work? Would it even be necessary? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s certainly an interesting thought!

27. Closettrekker - September 23, 2009

I actually found the last season and a half or so of ENT to be quite entertaining, but I never found myself endeared to any of its characters, quite honestly.

Then again, I never found that any of the spinoff characters really endeared themselves to me.

But with that said, I would rewatch just about any of Manny Coto’s ENT episodes before I would ever touch another round of 24th Century reruns…As maligned as it is in much of the fan community, it’s actually my second-favorite Star Trek series.

28. Dom - September 23, 2009

I never found Scott Bakula all that interesting to watch. He kinda reminds me of Kevin Costner in that respect.

Mr Bakula seems . . . like a nice chap. Just nothing much beyond that!

29. Lore - September 23, 2009

Bakula now has a recurring charactor on “The New Adventures of Old Christine” on CBS. He’s a love interest for Julia Louis Dryfess.

30. CAPT KRUNCH - September 23, 2009

Archer was awesome!…Would love to see a Enterprise mini series based on the Romulan Wars…etc….they went out on such a sorry note…
though I still wonder how old Archer is if he is still around for Scotty to interact with…must be pushing 150 at least…I am assuming this is some great great great grand puppy of the original Porthos…anyway a great reference…and if you read the novelization…
(SPOILER)…you find out what happens to Porthos….kinda cool….

31. bill hiro - September 23, 2009

Bakula’s a great guy. Intensely likable and thus one of those actors who is perfect for weekly TV because you just enjoy the guy’s vibe – kind of like James Garner was on The Rockford Files.

32. THX-1138 - September 23, 2009

I don’t normally pick on the typos, but the quote above was funny. “….there was so much going on in that movie–great movie indecently,”

Man, I’m sorry I missed the indecent parts. Oh well, there’s always bonus features.

Reading Bakula talk is a little odd. I get the sense from this that he has a difficult time sorting his thoughts.

33. Brett Campbell - September 23, 2009

Hmm … “a great film indecently.” Might that read “incidentally”?

34. Captain McColl - September 23, 2009

He did look a bit stiffer than your average Kirk or Sisko, but when they where commanding people out in space humanity already had 100 and 200 years experience in space respectively. Archer was the first, he had nobody to tell him what it was like out there because nobody had been. I bet that Kirk had a few classes on him at the Academy.
He probably wasnt intended to be like that to the story writers, but its a good explanation

35. Closettrekker - September 23, 2009

#30—“…I still wonder how old Archer is if he is still around for Scotty to interact with…must be pushing 150 at least…”

Actually, Scotty’s experiment with the “prized beagle” takes place in 2257, making Jonathan Archer 145 years of age at that point.

Leonard McCoy lived to be at least 137 years old, so it is certainly not unheard of in the ST Universe. In fact, the oldest person to date lived to be 122 years and 164 days old. That person died 12 years ago, so given the likely advances in health/medicine over the next two centuries, it is not at all inconceivable that such longer lifespans could become far more common.

36. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - September 23, 2009

I read the novel my self and i hope that have that scene in the next Movie so we can see porthos apear. I hope that J.J and the court give Scott a small role in the next movie. Maybe have Scotty give Porthos back to Admrial Archer played by Scott.

37. Saavik001 - September 23, 2009

I’m rewatching Enterprise again this week, on the second season. I really liked the show and especially the Archer, T”Pol and Trip relationships. I miss it. I even wrote letters to save it to no avail :( A Romulan war mini-series would be awesome! Reading the Enterprise novels too (waiting for Under The Raptors Wings). I liked Bakula since Quantum Leap when I was a kid. Best wishes to Scott!

38. Closettrekker - September 23, 2009

#34—Actually, I think that was, to some extent, what the writers had in mind with the character. I think that Archer was supposed to represent a certain innocence and naivety in human space exploration in the mid-22nd Century, and I think he was supposed to come across as sometimes having to learn how to properly conduct himself the hard way.

It may not have been the most endearing trait in a starship captain, but I think that, in all honesty, he *should* have been stiff, nervous, etc. In that respect, perhaps the show’s producers paid the price for keeping the character within more “realistic” expectations….which is not always necessarily good for the audience’s appreciation for the character.

Audiences are easily endeared to guys like Kirk and Sisko, who are *almost* always sure of themselves and confident of the moral justifications of their actions. Archer was a character who was required to pave the way for guys like that, and it was always going to be a bumpy ride. In some ways, the show did that justice, but I think the character’s likability paid the price.

39. Saavik001 - September 23, 2009

In the Prime Universe, on the screen for ‘In a Mirror Darkly”, Sussman said Archer lived to see the U.S.S Enterprise being launched… Not sure if its official canon since it was only in text on the viewscreen….

40. garen - September 23, 2009

more work for Scott. If you can find a preview of the show…check it out. it looks really really good. Something that we havent really seen explored before on TV.

41. DavidJ - September 23, 2009

I think Bakula was clearly playing Archer as more of a modern day ASTRONAUT-type than a typical confident, hard-nosed Star Trek captain.

Which I thought was a perfectly legitimate idea (because of the time period), and a refreshing change of pace from previous shows.

The problem was he was written so inconsistently from week to week, and oftentimes came across as a complete DUNDERHEAD. lol

42. John from Cincinnati - September 23, 2009

Scott Bakula is probably one of the nicest guys in Hollywood. But he is just not Captain material.

43. John from Cincinnati - September 23, 2009

Bakula’s Archer is like when Capt. Kirk got split in half in TOS “The Enemy Within” except Bakula’s Archer is the nice half who couldn’t lead.

44. Captain Dunsel - September 23, 2009

One of the best episodes of Enterprise was “First Flight”. Kind of makes me wonder how the series would have fared with “A.G. Robinson” at the helm of the NX-01?

45. Closettrekker - September 23, 2009

I like more episodes of ENT than of any previous spinoff series.

“Cold Station 12″
“The Augments”
“The Forge”
“Babel One”
“The Aenar”
“In A Mirror, Darkly Part I”
“In A Mirror, Darkly Part II”
“Terra Prime”

That’s 17 episodes I enjoyed, all but one in the show’s “lame duck” 4th season.

I would struggle to find that many episodes of the other 3 Trek spinoffs combined that I liked as much, and with due respect to Ron Moore’s “Yesterday’s Enterprise”, probably not a single one better than “Similitude” or “Terra Prime”…Those episodes are quite poignant, without sacrificing good entertainment value.

46. Thorny - September 23, 2009

“Quantum Leap” was a terrific show until NBC/Universal talked Mr. Bellisario into deviating from the show’s ‘internal rules’ and have Sam leap into famous people/events. The show’s final season with Oswald, Elvis, Vampires, Dr. Ruth, etc. was almost unbearable. And the finale was great until the last scene where “Sam Beckett never returned home.” What was Mr. Bellisario thinking there?

Mr. Bakula is a very good actor, but either he didn’t really get Archer/Starship Captain characters or was very badly written for in “Enterprise”. It might be a little of both.

I hope he returns to “Chuck” whenever NBC bothers to put that show back on the air.

47. Shadowcat - September 23, 2009

@26 and 36:

I read the book too. I wished they would have included that scene at the end of ST XI. That would be a neat idea. Have Porthos re-appear in the transporter room at the beginning of the next movie. Then have Scotty give Porthos back to Admiral Archer. I have liked Scott Bakula since Quantum Leap. I actually liked the first season of Enterprise but lost interest after that.

48. I'm dead Jim - September 23, 2009

ENT *became* my 2nd favorite spin-off but it didn’t start off that way. What I liked most about Archer’s development was how he started out as an idealistic explorer who eventually felt he had to resort to torture (during the Xindi arc). I think that was Bakula’s best performance as Archer as he suffered through that decision.

49. DavidJ - September 23, 2009


Only 17? I would say TNG and DS9 each had at LEAST that many episodes which could be called great.

Probably about 1/3 of each would I consider complete duds; the rest were still enjoyable in SOME way.

50. S. John Ross - September 23, 2009

Never really watched Enterprise, but I dig Bakula from his other stuff.

51. Closettrekker - September 23, 2009

#49—I hear you. I don’t expect my opinion to be shared much by other fans, especially given most fans’ feelings toward ENT. Most people around here liked those other shows (TNG, etc.) alot more than I did.

While I enjoyed DS9 better than TNG or VOY, I couldn’t personally find that many I enjoyed as much I did those 17 episodes of ENT in all 3 other spinoff shows combined.

In fact, there is only one episode in 7 seasons of TNG that makes my top 50 list of all-time favorite Star Trek episodes…the rest would be filled with about 25 TOS episodes, those 17 ENT episodes, and a little more than a handful of DS9 episodes.

Sorry, but I’ve never been a big fan of 24th Century Star Trek. It’s just my opinion. Believe me, I realize that it is a minority one…but I’m okay with that.

52. I'm dead Jim - September 23, 2009

I am a big fan of TNG. It’s the only Trek series I have on DVD. But I admit a lot of it is not very good. I guess it’s a lot like mac & cheese, comfort food. So I take the bad with the good.

53. S. John Ross - September 23, 2009

#51: “Sorry, but I’ve never been a big fan of 24th Century Star Trek. It’s just my opinion. Believe me, I realize that it is a minority one…but I’m okay with that.”

Minority but by no means alone … it’s pretty much all about TOS (with a fondness for TAS, too) for me, with the rest … appreciated but seldom loved.

I love the TNG cast, though, even if I have a mixed relationship with their show.

Never really watched a lot of DS9. Seemed like a quality show but just didn’t draw me in. Saw very little Voyager and disliked what little I saw. Literally, I’ve never sat through a whole ep of Voyager without being paid to (and I still feel queasy about the times I was paid to). And as for the films … I still just see them as tie-in merchandise (that just happens to be canon) rather than as genuine Star Trek (and that’s not me bagging the new film; the same goes for every Star Trek big-screen outing, as far as I’m concerned).

No strong opinion of Enteprise at all, good or bad. Honestly, I simply haven’t seen enough of it to form one … it was on at a time when I wasn’t watching much TV at all and wasn’t following any hour-drama. One of these days I’ll give it a proper visit.

54. Horatio - September 23, 2009

My feelings are… uncertain as far as Scott Bakula is concerned. He is obviously a nice guy. I just got tired of Archer whining and stomping around like he was constipated all the time.

Guess i’m more inclined to the cowboy diplomacy shoot first ask questions later type of starship captain!

55. Closettrekker - September 23, 2009

I think it would be difficult for me to call anything which lasted 7 seasons and enjoyed such popularity “bad”. There was obviously something about it which appealed to people. I think it is better for me to say that TNG just wasn’t for me. The TNG era was bland to me, where TOS was fun and sexy, and I think that a combination of factors contributed to that, not the least of which was Roddenberry being a much younger man in 1964-65.

56. sean - September 23, 2009

I love Bakula. He’s great in almost everything, but he was soooo out of place in Star Trek. A fault I lay more at the feet of the writing staff than the actor. The Archer character seemed to suffer from multiple personality disorder, and you really never knew which Archer you’d be getting from week to week. That aside, he was just a bit boring. Most of Enterprise’s characters were pretty flat (aside from, say, Tucker) actually, which was a real shame. That show could have been really good. Instead, it felt like TNG Lite (right down to the recycled storylines).

57. Ben - September 23, 2009

awesome actor/entertainer!

would love to see him doing more Star Trek or Quantum Leap.

I’m certainly gonna watch Men of a certain Age.

58. Closettrekker - September 23, 2009

#56—“He’s great in almost everything, but he was soooo out of place in Star Trek. A fault I lay more at the feet of the writing staff than the actor. The Archer character seemed to suffer from multiple personality disorder, and you really never knew which Archer you’d be getting from week to week. ”

I would certainly agree with that from the first episode right up until “Similitude”, which I believe was the first episode under the creative direction of Manny Coto. I really think that Coto reigned that show in, and it showed from that point onward. It wasn’t until that point that ENT started to feel less like a prequel to TNG, and more like a prequel to TOS.

ENT is the only spinoff series I own on dvd, and whenever I get the urge to watch, I just start there.

Prior to that, I think that ENT was really “phoned-in” and left to rot without a clear direction for the show or its characters. It’s a shame that it took an ordered cancellation to bring in some fresh talent to rectify that, but it is what it is. Seasons one, two, and most of three are forgettable…But I really think that there are 17 good episodes from “Similitude” onward, and sometimes that tends to get lost amidst the general disdain for the show among established fans while it was on the air.

I count myself among those, as I didn’t watch much of it at all during its initial run. But on the strength of those 17 episodes in the late 3rd-4th seasons, I think the show is better on dvd than it gets credit for most days around here.

59. DavidJ - September 23, 2009


TNG definitely looks pretty bland in retrospect, but at the time I thought it was the coolest thing ever (of course being a nerdy teenager I probably would think that. lol)

Looking back at ALL the series now though, I have to agree TOS stands heads and shoulders above the rest– and is the only one I’m really interested in revisiting anymore.

60. Syd Hughes - September 23, 2009

I thought Archer was perfect — an inexperienced, vastly optimistic explorer, way in over his head once he gets out of the Solar System. Then, as the series progressed, the character slowly (realistically) developed and grew. He’s forced to learn how to be a military commander in Season 3, and then a diplomat in Season 4. Explorer, soldier, diplomat… now he’s becoming a Starfleet captain.

Pity the series was cut off just as it was getting really good.

I know the majority of Trek fans wanted another different-looking Picard, but that wouldn’t make any sense in the context of the universe. There hadn’t BEEN a Starfleet that long. Instead, we got to see Archer grow from a well-intentioned fool into the model captain for Starfleet to follow.

61. Matt Decker's Pharmacist - September 23, 2009

I watched every episode of every incarnation that came off of the trek assembly line and, second to the classic original Trek, I was easily best entertained by the characters and stories of Enterprise. Though light years apart from the creative and fun stories of TOS, Enterprise was still infinitely more entertaining than TNG and the other spin offs. But ultimately, Enterprise was just another TNG clone, which is sad because there was so much potential there. The under-utilization of great characters like Phlox and Reed and Trip was borderline criminal. Trip alone had more natural charm and dimensionality than the whole cast of TNG combined!

62. The Angry Klingon (without a trenchcoat) - September 23, 2009

Talk about misquoting someone…
Bakula’-“great movie INDECENTLY”
Pretty sure he said INCIDENTALLY not indecently unless of course hes in to indecent great movies :P

63. Thorny - September 23, 2009

62… Probably another case of Runaway Spellchecker Syndrome.

64. AJ - September 23, 2009

Archer always reminded me of the corporate regional sales manager whom everyone in the office snickers about when he leaves. He played water polo (yawn) and has a beagle (yawn). No sense of humor because he has no personal life.

And, unlike the poster up above who thought his character arc was slow and made sense, I read that ‘in season 3, they’re going to give Archer a temper, make him more on the edge’ because that was a current criticism of the character. Bland. So Archer screamed a lot and did some Jack Bauer-style ‘questionable’ things during the Xindi arc to zazz up the ratings.

I think Trip, T’Pol and Phlox were the best characters. And I would think that if ENT had gone 7 seasons under Coto, he would have found a way to give Archer his mojo. They just didn’t.

65. Lore - September 23, 2009

#61 Since you’ve watched every series, can you spot the rehashed scripts from Voyager; DS9, & Enterprise. It made me sick. Hire some new writers, but they don’t and won’t. Union members protecting each other even in Hollywood, and the audience is treated to spam story lines used over and over.

66. JSheppard023 - September 23, 2009

I must admit, I’m not the biggest TNG fan either. It’s not that I dislike the characters or the stories, it’s the piss-poor 80s visual effects on a high-caliber show that is supposed to be considered a network tent-pole. Bad visual effects can really make a good show tank and it was one of my primary reasons to stay away from TOS (until TOS:R). It did get better over the years, but never on the levels of DS9 (the Defiant running the Dominion lines in Operation Return in “Sacrifice of Angels), VOY (Voyager’s showdown with the time ship in “Year of Hell Part II”), and ENT (Enterprise and the Xindi Arboreals, Aquatics, and Primates vs. the Xindi Reptilians and Insectoids in “Countdown”). Hell even TOS: Remastered’s “The Doomsday Machine”.

Visual effects are the scene buttons, bridges, transition and not to mention major plot points in the Star Trek formula. Roddenberry knew that. That’s why he got ILM to do the TNG pilot. He knew that the world of Star Trek demanded better than the effects they had on TOS. Times had changed, he embraced that. If Roddenberry had been around through season 7, there’s no way in hell he would have stayed on the show if the network would have let the effects quality falter by going on the cheap and hiring crappy vendors as a cost saving measure and the advocated the abusive over-use of a few stock shots to do the same. I realize he had to make these concessions during TOS, but that was because Trek had not had its ascension and cemented itself in our culture at that time. It wasn’t an institution yet. It wasn’t THE sci-fi show. But this was 1987, you couldn’t meet anyone who hadn’t heard of Star Trek. Paramount was jonesing for a new Trek show and Roddenberry gave them one. He had free reign to do what he wanted. I know what the times were for television post-production; long before HD, digital video and digital video editing systems, and CGI effects [Yes I am aware of the expense and the work on “Datalore”]. This is Star Trek. It demands better. There were so many bad matte paintings, cheap B movie transporter effects, terrible holodeck transitions, and Enterprise D shots [not done by ILM] that it dates the show terribly. It cements it in the late 1980s, even later seasons as well. Hence the existence of TOS Remastered. I can see why they did it. It’s not Lucasing the show, just giving it it’s proper treatment. I strongly feel if they take TNG to Blu-Ray they must give it a similar treatment. Give TNG its due, awesome visual effects equivalent of the times a full digital color grade and color correction, and an HD transfer from the original negatives. Now that would be something worth paying a ton of money for and propel the series to a Roddenberry standard of quality. It’s a long shot, but who knows.

And that brings me to my big nitpick with TNG…

That F-ing stock shot from “Encounter at Farpoint” without the proper camera move that makes the Enterprise D look like it’s coming out of a roller coaster loop used in practically every F-ing episode. Berman even had the audacity to use it in Generations. Really dude??!! In their first feature outing??!! It is used so often that it completely takes me out of a show. It is so annoying. DS9 and Voyager could get away with it because the effects were better, the shots had more movement, and DS9 is a F-ing Cardassian space station. How much can it really move? This blatant abuse is just a testament to his abilities as a producer. I understand there’s a budget to adhere to, but wake up dude! It’s called a bottle show. I believe you are familiar with the term. It’s a cost saving measure so you can spend more money on other shows to make them look, feel, sound better. You have 24 to 26 a year, what’s one cheap show? You can just see this post-production conversation between Berman and the slew of different directors to come to the show through the years….

“We need a shot of the Enterprise to end this scene with Riker and Picard in the ready room.”
“Just use the one we have.”
“The one from Encounter at Farpoint??!!”
“Sure. Why not?”
“We can’t re-composite one of the other shots or get one of our vendors to roll the model out of storage and grab a couple of new shots?”
“Why would we do that?”
“So our show doesn’t look exactly like last weeks.”

Ding-dong Berman’s gone. Thank God!!

For the record…Manny Coto and Ira Stephen Behr saved your ass in Enterprise seasons 3 and 4 and DS9. You might want to thank them sir. God knows you f-ed us all with “These Are the Voyages…” You couldn’t just let Coto and company do the right ending could you? G.D. Egos. The picture perfect example of WHAT NOT TO DO with a franchise ending episode.

67. sean - September 23, 2009


I agree with most of that. Season 4 was a definite improvement over 1-3. But I felt like it was just too little too late at that point. I never feel much urge to revisit it.

68. Valar1 - September 23, 2009

I love these rationalizations that Archer was in over his head because he was the first captain to go out that far. Was he the first captain ever? Have there never been leaders in military organizations? Was there never a screening process or a school where he could be tested to see if he was psychologically fit to be captain? Or does everyone that the Trek writers write for suddenly wake up one day, decide to be captain and no one questions whether they have management skills?

Skills such as how to handle subordinates, how to inspire a team to work even when they don’t want to, how to reprimand without becoming emotionally involved, how to promote based on merit rather than familiarity, how to handle a crisis in a calm manner rather than running around shouting at everyone like you’re in way over your head, have no idea what to do, and you’re scared shitless. I seldom saw these common managerial skills in Archer. I guess the writers thought common managerial sense and experience were things that were genetically evolved into Picard or Sisko or Kirk and the Prequel captain should be more erratic and emotionally unstable.

69. THX-1138 - September 23, 2009


That’s ridiculous. I can’t believe you would even say that. Unbelievable. You think you know someone and then they post something like that.

70. Mitch - September 23, 2009

Well, it was nice of them to put something in there for Enterprise fans. I heard they both loved it.

71. Losira - September 23, 2009

Capt. Archer was hardly bi polar. As said by fellow commenters space exploration was truely in new born baby hood. Class room study is one thing. In addition to his dreams & idealisom. Then bam reality bit. Added to the fact that starship caotcapt. Roles were realy yet to be fully defined. Trial & error was the order of the day. Archer was kind of making things go as he went along. Sa more seasoning and learning gis way about the hard way. He did in time begin to define the genre of the starship capt. No true guielines ex. The prime dieective did not exist. The values he had he took with him from earth. As later times of kirk picard. Star capt,s protocols were somewhat defined. Starfleet & man. Where having growing pains with muc to learn. About out their and our place & and our selvies. Bakula was amazing in his portryal of Archer. As mankind exploring & and at times stumbling “out there” and I resoect archer for not pimping around soace. Wellll I like nice men

72. Daoud - September 23, 2009

Re: Porthos… I’m sure K/O meant the one and only Porthos.

After all, Porthos has the pituitary gland of a Calrissian chameleon! That problem makes him almost immortal.

At least, it would be funny if that was the result of Phlox transplanting that into him!

Maybe we can’t see him because he blended into the environment??

Ouch, what was that Captain Kirk just sat on!? Boy, I hope they don’t beam him down when they visit that planet from “The Enemy Within”! Can you imagine Bad Porthos with a cut on his maw, drinking booze, trying to score with Nurse Chapel!

73. Pete359 - September 23, 2009

I can’t help but wonder why Archer at that point in time didn’t try to contact Daniels saying “Um, someone just blew up Vulcan… like when the Xindi tried to blow up Earth and it was big deal…. hello… founding member of the Federation obliterated… anyone?”

74. GarySeven - September 23, 2009

#45 Closettreker:

I agree. “Similitude” is excellent Star Trek. I don’t hear it talked about much, but it is a very moving episode with some serious thinking going on in there. The part, when the cloned Trip is about to to to the surgery and die, as he pets Porthos silently, made a big impression on me- very powerful.
And the fourth season was very very good. The other seasons, fair.
I thought they made some major missteps. The technology was way too advanced to be a hundred years before TOS. I don’t mean that the sets looked more modern; that’s appropriate, given that our cell phones look more modern than communicators…
But they had transporters, phasers, could go to a max of Warp 5 instead of Warp 6…(huge difference, not). I mean, a hundred years ago we had the Wright Brothers…compare that to the jets of today, infantry using horses, etc.
Another big problem was that they made the Vulcans into aggressive emotional jerks. They didn’t seem anything like the Vulcans of TOS.

75. Greg2600 - September 23, 2009

I love Scott Bakula, but from day one, he always seemed uncomfortable as Archer. It’s not the kind of character he’s good at. He’s so good at comedy that it didn’t seem right he was so serious all of the time. Oh well.

76. Xanthur - September 23, 2009

I watched every ep of ENT in original run. I remember getting a feeling from that first hour that this would be something new, exciting, and frontier-like. When they went down to Rigel X and had the EM 33s and were dealing with their first adventure…great stuff. Then we get the Sulibads and the Temporal Crap War and Klingons…and it went down the tubes.

Here’s what should’ve been done:

*Keep the interiors…they were PERFECT!

*Use the S.S. Conestoga design with a few tweaks as the NX-01.

*Keep the uniforms, but ditch the TNG rank pips and use a new system of rank (patches/stripes)

*Most importantly, F***ING FIRE BRAGA AND BERMAN! Braga admitted in the TV Guide interview he did before “Broken Bow:” “I should probably be fired, I’ve done this too long” or some such. Really? No joke? You’ll still take the fat paycheck, bang Jeri Ryan, and destroy Trek.

*I’d have kept the Klingons out until season 2 or 3. No TCW, no Suliban.

*Re-write the pilot. First hour: we see the implications of humanity’s first true starship. The crew saying goodbye to loved ones, some political stuff (integral later on) and a proper launch. Hundreds of private ships, military vessels, and news vessels there to witness humanity’s first leap into a new era of exploration.

Second hour: “The Andorian Incident,” with some tweaking. Make one of the founding races of the Federation the Enterprise’s first contact. That episode was great and would have set the tone for the rest of the series.

*Give T’Pol a f***ing Starfleet uniform and a Starfleet equivalent of her Vulcan rank (as was done with Kira in DS9’s later seasons)

*Keep the themes and feel of episodes like “The Andorian Incident,” “Silent Intruder,” and some of “Broken Bow.” Space is dangerous, it’s unknown, nothing they’ve studied has prepared this crew for this.

*Build up the founding races–rarely seen outside of TOS–into regulars on the show. The Andorians, the Tellarites, the Alpha Centaurians. Introduce a few other TOS races that were already established (Axanar was a great nod) but no TNG races like the Cardassians or Ferengi or esp. the fucking Borg.

The show could have been so much more, and even though it righted itself in the later seasons, it was too late.

77. Xanthur - September 23, 2009

Dammit, I meant “Fight or Flight,” though “Silent ENEMY” was pretty good too.

78. dmduncan - September 23, 2009

When they started out with the Archer-T’Pol tension I thought it might be interesting watching that develop given that it probably would have caused interesting issues. Then they did a bait and switch with Trip, where nothing was at stake by the relationship. I stopped watching after that. It wasn’t the only issue, but it was the last straw.

79. RetroWarbird - September 23, 2009

Enterprise had a lot of flaws, and none of the characters got the coverage they deserved in four years.

But for my money, any time Archer and Shran shared the screen nearly redeemed the lack of story arcs over the years.

The Klingon trial was retreading old ground but was still done well. And the arc with the Vulcans in the desert was really strong.

80. Mr. "There are always possibilities". - September 23, 2009

Scott Bakula was really good. Archer wasn’t like any of the other captains, and that made him interesting. I don’t know if Mr. Bakula did this on purpose, but I always felt he played Archer like a competent, intelligent and brave person who is the first ever commander of an earth starship; constantly out on the ledge, with no precedent, and many times only his gut to guide him. I felt that he was making decisions the only way he knew how and to the best of his experience. I always enjoyed that.

I enjoyed Enterprise, but was at times dissapointed with the writing. It seemed to me that the show never really hit its stride. I thought the last “half season” was the best. I really enjoyed the tie-ins to TOS and even “These are the voyages” (except for the death of Trip).

Live long and prosper, and boldly go!

81. Weerd1 - September 23, 2009

I can’t tell you why, but I love Enterprise. I recognize many flaws in there, and quite a few poorly written stories, but the characters kept me coming back. When it was good, it was very good. These actors seemed to genuinely care for and like Trek- puts them ahead of the majority of the Voyager cast…

I did like that the stories tended to be very human- Voyager often resorted to the tech fix. Even when it was bad, Enterprise would generally provide a human solution. That gets mileage with me.

And of course, my beloved T’Pol.

Trip Lives!

82. Spockish - September 23, 2009

When they first started promoting Enterprise, Paramount stated this new series will fill in many of the little holes in the Star Trek epilogue that there has been no real answers to previously.

The first season mostly answered questions about getting use to deep space exploring.

Season 2 & 3 was meant to try to grab the hoopla that the TNG Borg idea gained.

The 4th season the writers realized, opps we forgot the first promo point of Enterprise and they had many questions to answer.

And the last real content episodes, the two parter was because one of the writers had a great idea of an alternate Universe (aka Mirror Mirror). It was a really good two part’er and looks even better in the 1280×720 episodes I got off the net. If you want to know how, the answer is educate yourself if you want copies your self. That answer is here to make Paramount happy because my way I paid not a penny, but Paramount want money.

83. Jim Nightshade - September 23, 2009

I agree with Losiri-bakula did great as archer and was learning and growing as he went along being the first captain/explorer-I enjoyed how Enterprise seemed both familiar and yet different at the same time-writing was uneven at times but every series has that problem-also agree that archer and shram were great together-and tpol was wonderful as was phlox and hoshi and trip-the last season was awesome and the mirror episodes was some of bakulas best work-

84. sean - September 23, 2009

I would have enjoyed ‘Similitude’ a lot more if it hadn’t been basically the exact same plot of a Voyager episode named ‘Tuvix’. There are slight differences in the ‘science’ of how the particular characters are threatened, but it’s basically the same story: A new character is created from an existing character, and to save the original character the new character has to die. But in the meantime, the crew has become attached to the new character, making the decision more difficult.

That’s a big issue I had with Enterprise – not only were they retreading TNG episodes, they were doing it after Voyager spent 7 years retreading TNG episodes. It was really old hat by that point.

85. Closettrekker - September 24, 2009

#84—-I wouldn’t have made the connection….”Tuvix”, like most VOY episodes, was so cheesy and uninteresting that I had forgotten its existence altogether.

What I do recall of it is far less similarity to “Similitude” (redundant, I know). The former is about an accidental creation of a lifeform at the expense of two others, and how it is a sad thing that this creature (who was never meant to be) has to forgo its existence to restore that of the two individuals of which it was comprised….the latter is much more relevant and a hundred times less corny…It is about the moral reprecussions of cloning a human being for the purposes of harvesting a part of the clone in order to save an existing life, at the expense of the clone. The realization that the clone himself has human value not unlike that of his naturally conceived counterpart is quite compelling, as his the expression of his own (quite understandable) will to survive.

Even if it was a “retread” (and I still think that’s a stretch), it still wouldn’t change my opinion that “Tuvix” is utterly silly and really isn’t worth a crap, while “Similitude” has alot to offer even an audience of non-traditional fans…which is, in itself, the mark of an *excellent* Star Trek episode. Even if you think you know where you stand on the issue of ethics vs. the potential benefits of cloning, this is a story which puts a human face on both sides of that issue, without strongly advocating one choice over the other. I think that story has quite alot of value, and have great admiration for the way in which it was told.

86. Gen. Trelane, Ret. - September 24, 2009

If the beagle mourning “Admiral Archer” referenced is supposed to be the Bakula character from “Enterprise”, he would be about 160 years old.

87. Horatio - September 24, 2009

Agree alot with #76.

4th season of Enterprise should have been its 1st. Forget about all that farting around in space during season 1 & 2 and the canon (eeek! did I just become a canonista!!?!?!?!?!? AAAH!) breaking Xindi arc of season 3.

But then what do I know? I’m just a fanboy.

Here is a question, if not Bakula has Archer, who would have been better?

88. Shatner_Fan_Prime - September 24, 2009

#58 … I agree with every word. After giving it a chance during season 1, I had lost all interest in Enterprise until Coto saved it. Season 4 was terrific, and had there been a season 5, it was very possible Shatner was going to be in it. One of their ideas involved him playing not Jim Kirk, but Tiberius Kirk from the Mirror Universe! How cool would that have been??? I’d have shat myself…

89. Weerd1 - September 24, 2009

#86- 146 according to Starfleet records. Aged, but not outside the realm of Trek possible.

90. tom vinelli - September 24, 2009

It was a shame they dumped enterprize. I saw an interview with rick berman and he thought the series could have gone 7 seasons. People forget past series also took time to hit there stride. Tng took season 3 to get going., DS9 took 4 seasons to really take off . Voyager at least season 3. It all come down to the studios stuck with it 7 seasons with these shows. Enterprize ended up on a crap network ,upn which did noting to promote the series. At the time CBS was interested in picking up enterprize for a season 5 ,but paramount and upn said ”no”. Remember they felt startrek needed a rest. Then 6 months later paramount says a new movie is in the works, what a joke.

91. tom vinelli - September 24, 2009

There was some rumor after startrek 2009 ,that maybe a new series on tv could happen. I dont know why paramount won’t consider a mini tv series with startrek every year or so.

92. dmduncan - September 24, 2009

87: “Here is a question, if not Bakula has Archer, who would have been better?”

Kurt Russell.

93. Closettrekker - September 24, 2009

#86—“If the beagle mourning “Admiral Archer” referenced is supposed to be the Bakula character from “Enterprise”, he would be about 160 years old.”

Actually, Jonathan Archer is born in 2112, and the “beagle incident” occurs in 2257.

The difference there is 145 years…not 160.

If Archer is 145, that’s only 8 years older than McCoy was at Farpoint, and only 23 years older than the longest recorded *actual* lifespan to date (1875-1997).

In the Star Trek Universe, that’s not much of a stretch.

94. dmduncan - September 24, 2009

I can’t recall the article, but I remember reading that with certain foreseeable medical advances a normal human lifespan of about 200 years was possible.

95. CarlG - September 24, 2009

@87: I know he’s a bit out of Trek’s price range nowadays, but Aaron Eckhart would have made an awesome Archer.

@67: Agreed. “Character growth” doesn’t automatically mean “be angrier and become disillusioned”.

Something that bugs me, though: Just around when ENT was winding down, Bakula guest starred on Boston Legal — and he was terrific! He was funny, energetic, passionate, snarky, and downright charming.
So where was all that while he was playing Captain Archer?
Or is it just a case of the actor being hamstrung by the script?

96. Closettrekker - September 24, 2009

#95—-“Or is it just a case of the actor being hamstrung by the script?”

I think that’s why alot of people tend to put the responsibility for that on the writers, rather than Bakula, who we know to be a capable actor.

“ ‘Character growth’ doesn’t automatically mean ‘be angrier and become disillusioned’ ”.

While not necessarily “growth”, I think that is, to be fair, a legitimate example of “character development”. It would be perfectly normal for one who initially goes into a situation as quite naively optimistic, only to find himself thrust into the role of “soldier” a whole lot more often than he would have envisioned as a pioneer explorer, to become somewhat disillusioned…One might also become disillusioned at the discovery that his own people blame him for bringing danger to their doorstep. Sacrificing so much, only to find yourself “unappreciated”, would tend to bring out feelings of anger and disillusion…I’m not sure what is difficult to understand about that. I never saw that as emotional instability, but rather a man whose outlook has been altered.

97. CarlG - September 24, 2009

@95: True enough. I supposed it’s a reasonable reaction to the whole Xindi arc of Season 3…. than again, I loathed Season 3, so I’m not exactly unbiased. :)

98. T'Cal - September 24, 2009

I like Scott Bakula a lot and base my tepid response to his character, Archer, on the writers and directors. I wanted to see him as the kind of captain that Riker would use as a role model – adept at tactics, a bit of a rogue, unpredictable and smart, an involved leader. Instead he was stiff and there wasn’t enough shown of his relationships with others to merit the undying respect and admiration that they gave the man.

99. Thorny - September 24, 2009

87. Horatio… “Here is a question, if not Bakula has Archer, who would have been better?”

Damien Lewis.

100. Closettrekker - September 24, 2009

#97—I’m not a Xindi-arc fan either, per se, but I don’t feel it is the “canon-buster” that some make it out to be.

In my mind, anything which happens after the events of FC/”Regeneration” is really subject to a resulting alternate timeline anyway…

I think that once the Borg interfered with the 21st Century (and even left behind some of its drones), all bets were off, even if Picard and company had, for the most part, “corrected” the timeline.

I view the “Temporal Cold War” and the resulting Xindi arc as products of that altered timeline only, and therefore see the entirety of ENT as a version of the 22nd Century which unfolds slightly differently than the one which preceded TOS as we know it. I don’t feel that the “sphere-builders” were a part of that timeline, and their manipulation of the 22nd Century was a failed attempt to alter the past (and by extension, the future) to their own benefit, facilitated in some way by the actions of the Borg in First Contact.

The producers of 24th Century Trek and ENT made clear in interviews that they felt FC had altered the timeline, and although some fans wanted to ignore that (since nothing on screen proved it), I think that the second-season ENT episode “Regeneration” actually suggests that this is likely.

I have never felt as if any of that was “supposed to happen”, and therefore the timeline was vulnerable to changes….just my opinion.

101. Captain Dunsel - September 24, 2009

I wonder if Enterprise might have been a better series if they had followed some of the earlier shows in allowing outside script submissions.

I’m not sure that the general public would have provided better material than the “professionals”. But maybe seeing some lame ideas coming from OUTSIDE might have made it easier for the writing staff to avoid some of the clunkers they developed in house.

102. CarlG - September 25, 2009

@100: I didn’t really care about the whole “canon-ness” of it, I didn’t like it cause it was a clunky, anvilicious allegory, and it derailed the show into darker and edgier territory.

Trek is supposed to be about “Seeking out new life and new civilisations”, not “Seeking out new life and blasting the crap out of them before they can hurt us.”

I don’t mind dark Trek, and there are ways to do it well (ST VI, In the Pale Moonlight), but ENT season 3 just left a bad taste in my mouth.

@87: Is it too late to change my vote to Christopher Walken?
You KNOW you’d watch it.

103. CarlG - September 25, 2009

@101: It depends. For every decent script idea, they’d probably have to waste time sifting through piles of fanboy nonsense. Sturgeon’s Law strikes again.

104. Captain Cohen - September 25, 2009

{SPOILER ALERT if you’ve not read the novel of JJ’s STAR TREK film]

that’s right, 26, 36, 47 ..

Alan Dean Foster’s novel of “Star Trek” [that’s JJ’s movie btw] has further reference to the Porthos story – apart from the Scotty dialogue with Spock Prime & Kirk on the ice-planet, there’s extra fun right at the end of the novel once the Enterprise is on its way with Kirk as Captain & Spock as First Officer ..

..transporter comes on and onto the Transporter pad steps ..


so finally, “The Beagle has Landed”

personally I loved this little nod at the Enterprise series.

Oh and *72 Daoud’s comment was great –
“Boy, I hope they don’t beam him down when they visit that planet from “The Enemy Within”!

although there’s a story – Maybe one of the “Captain’s Table stories – “The Legend of Porthos” which is a kind of 007 meets Beagle Spy.

And wasn’t there an Enterprise episode where Archer and Porthos get swapped in the transporter?

Live [very] Long and prosper. – just don’t give him any cheese!

105. Jim Nightshade - September 25, 2009

fyi the fall 2009 issue of nvision has an article on the state of trek and they say “cbs is expected to offer viewers a new seialized adventure in the near future”–so we will see—Kurt Russell as Archer? I dunno hes too strongly associated with Stargate to me-thst was another roland emmerich movie like independence day that had a pretty good idea then had plot holes you could drive starships thru–but stargate redeemed itself with the series-

106. michaela - September 26, 2009


107. FreeMovieFairy.Com | Free Movies Online | Watch Online Movies | Full Movie Downloads - October 3, 2009

[…] Scott Bakula On Fandom, Quantum Leap Future, & Enterprise … […]

108. elodie - October 9, 2009

Scott Bakula is a great actor, I’d like to meet him in a convention. I began enjoying him by watching Quantum Leap when I was a teenager and now, I’m 26 and I’m discovering Star Trek : Enterprise. It’s a nice show.

I’m at episode 19 of season 1 and I really like Archer, because he’s not Picard, he’s not Kirk (not Shatner-Kirk, I prefer Pine-Kirk, the best Kirk ever), he’s just a captain who’s discovering space before the building of the Federation and this is what I like in this show : how was space exploration after the First Contact. How were relationships between humans and Vulcans and how they discovered other alien species.

I just don’t understand there’s so much hostility towards this show (but towards some writers I can understand it, I didn’t like the episode “Acquisition” not because ENT crew met the Ferengis, it’s the Ferengis themselves! I found it boring -except the fact that T’Pol becomes more and more human).

I really loved the nod to ENT with Porthos in ST11, this dog is so cute, maybe a Porthos cameo in ST12?

I’d like to see Archer (some of you may disagree with me), but I think it would be a great hommage to Enterprise that didn’t have the end that it derserved to have (Yeah, I know what’s happening in the finale, it’s quite weird!).

Live Long and prosper, Mr Bakula and Captain Archer! is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.