Exclusive Interview: Scott Bakula Talks “Men of A Certain Age” + Star Trek Sequel + more

Monday night TNT premieres their new drama Men of a Certain Age, which stars Scott Bakula as one of three old friends dealing with middle age. In an exclusive interview, Bakula talked to TrekMovie about the show, working with Matt Damon in The Informant! along with what he would have liked to have done with Archer on Enterprise and how he would be interested in appearing in JJ Abrams next Star Trek movie.


INTERVIEW: Scott Bakula

Scott talks "Men of a Certain Age" and "The Informant!"

TrekMovie: In Men of a Certain Age you are playing an actor, of a certain age, is there any Scott in Terry?

Scott Bakula: Very little. He is so opposite of me. He is such a non-committal guy. He is against relationships, he is free-wheeling. He is very happy to not be in a relationship and doesn’t have a great relationship with himself. He is a little distracted by life, and he is not looking in the mirror very clearly and seeing where he is. I am not really like that guy. I know people like him. I can certainly relate to being a struggling actor, but it was at a much younger age. It is a blast to play someone like it, because it is fun to play someone that you are not like and you can go to places and say things that wouldn’t normally do.

TrekMovie: In the pilot, your character has a bit of a humbling experience going to a cattle-call type of casting experience. After Enterprise I spoke to John Billingsley and he told me that after four years on the show, he ended up having to go to a lot of auditions and re-introducing himself to casting directors. Did you feel any of that after you were doing Enterprise for four years?

Scott Bakula: I think there is a little bit of "you’ve been away" for a little while. Our business has changed so much, that for a certain level of actor, if you are George Clooney or Matt Damon, you don’t have this issue of re-introducing yourself. But the players change so much in the business now and the turnover is so great, that there are people that are new and in four years a lot changes. I have no problem going in and meeting people. That’s just what happens. Our business doesn’t work like most businesses where you get a reputation and you build on that. You kind of start from square one in almost every job.

TrekMovie: Would you call that ‘sisyphean?’ [Bakula’s character gets called out for pretension for using the term ‘sisyphean‘ in the pilot for Men of a Certain Age]

Scott Bakula: [laughs] Yeah! But then there are times, like for instance when I got a phone call for The Informant! and they say "you are in the movie" and you feel like you haven’t heard them correctly. 

TrekMovie: It was that simple.

Scott Bakula: There was a lot of work going on behind the scenes that I wasn’t aware of, but Steven [Soderbergh]’s producer Greg Jacobs and I have known each other for years through our kids, but we never worked together. He called my agent and said "there was a part in the movie that would be good, but we have to through Steven and Warner Brothers and all this stuff so let’s not tell Scott yet". So our friendship wouldn’t’ be jeopardized. So I got a call from my agent who said I was in the new movie with Matt Damon and I had to call back ten minutes later saying "did you say I am in the movie and don’t have to read or anything, I am actually in the movie?"

TrekMovie: Does that kind of take away the fun of struggling for the job?

Scott Bakula: Oh no, there is no fun in struggling for the job. Sometimes you look back and it seems fun, but it is never fun when you are struggling for the job. There is nothing nice about auditioning, nothing. It sucks.

TrekMovie: On The Informant!, that was a different kind of project for you. It was Steven Soderbergh and Matt Damon, a true story, but kind of quirky. What was it like for you?

Scott Bakula: It was really interesting. Even though it was based on real-life characters and we got to meet them, Steven didn’t want us to copy them, he didn’t want me to get to know my guy personally and get into his idiosyncrasies. He really wanted the movie to have his spin, his quirky comedic spin. In hindsight, when you look back at the story of this character that Matt played, it was bizarre and stranger than fiction, and really unbelievable, but true. So Steven said, don’t do any research. Even though I was an FBI agent I didn’t go and learn how to use a gun and correct procedures or anything like that. It was really about these characters and how they dealt with this guy that nobody could figure out.

Matt was hysterical 24/7. And the movie was populated with stand-up comedians, so that was a whole other kind of experience. They are all funny guys cracking jokes and with five of them in a room together it was ridiculous. We had such a great time. And Steven works so fast, he knows right what he wants. We had a ball.

Bakula with Joel McHale and Matt Damon in "The Informant!"

TrekMovie: Back to Men of a Certain Age. The show is much more serious than I would have guessed. I had figured it was created by Ray Romano, I thought it was going to lean more to the comedy for a ‘dramedy’, but it deals with some serious issues. Is that how the show the show will continue, how will you guys strike the balance?

Scott Bakula: Ray is known for being a stand-up and for Everybody Loves Raymond, and he really wanted to go in a different direction when he coming back to television. He was the top guy on television for many years, so how do you follow that? He didn’t want to come back and do another straight comedy. It came from inside his head and Mike Royce’s head. It grew out of when he ended Raymond and suddenly nine years had gone by and his kinds had grown up and he was kind of this huge entity but out of a job, what was he do next? He didn’t have to do anything, but it offered him some kind of perspective on himself and out of it came this show. Given his druthers, it would have even less comedy in it than it does. I think it is going to show Ray in a great light. He is very vulnerable–yes very funny at times–but also it shows people what a really good actor he is.

TrekMovie: You, Ray and Andre [Braugher] seem to have a really good chemistry. Did you know each other or spend much time together before shooting?

Scott Bakula: No. We never met each other. I met Ray when I got the script. He wanted to meet Andre and myself to see how he felt about us, that was the extent of the chemistry work. We read some scenes together and it went to the network and the next thing I was hired. You can’t put a finger on it, there is a feeling that these guys are buddies and it seems to work. I am happy about that, that is always the fear that these guys are playing friends but don’t seem like friends.

Ray Romano, Andre Braugher and Scott Bakula, the three buddies at the heart of "Men of a Certain Age"

Bakula wants to beat Shatner – wanted to explore more of Archer

TrekMovie: Lets switch to some Star Trek stuff. Assuming you saw the new movie, how did you feel about the reference to Admiral Archer?

Scott Bakula: It went by so fast and there was so much going on that I almost didn’t think that I had heard it, because it was the dog reference and I was like "did I just hear that?" My two sons, they were all caught up and they didn’t care about my backstory, so when I asked them if they heard it, they didn’t remember it. So I had to confirm it with other people. I thought it was very clever. I thought JJ Abrams did a great job with the movie and everybody was great and it was a huge success for the studio.

TrekMovie: I talked to Bob Orci, who co-wrote the movie, and he told me that in his mind that reference was to your character, who was still alive at that time.

Scott Bakula: I really appreciate that. Maybe I will get in the next one. All I want to do is beat Shatner out for being in the next one.

Bakula wasn’t sure at first if he heard Scotty correctly, when referring to his character as ‘Admiral Archer’ in "Star Trek"

TrekMovie: In regards to Enterprise, in Hollywood for an actor being on a series for four years is pretty good.

Scott Bakula: Absolutely.

TrekMovie: But some people see that as it only did four years instead of seven. That being said, if Enterprise had gone three more years, what would you have liked to have done as an actor for a challenge with your character?

Scott Bakula: I think everything that happened to Archer in the first four years was about expanding his–his life experiences were limited by growing up in the system, and yet he had this incredible imagination and incredible believe in the possibilities. His character was hampered by that, because he was such an insider and such a company guy because of his father, there was a lot of breaking down that needed to go along with his taking over of the ship, which seemed natural and correct. But as he kept experiencing the possibilities and dealing with the formation of the Federation–that is where we were going, obviously–and contributing to that, and creating that politically and creating all the different factions and everything. I thought that was great. And as a human being, what we could have done with him in terms of opening his eyes more and lightening him up and different things that I thought were all elements of his character that I hoped we would have the time to explore and
expand up.

Bakula would have liked to explore Archer’s arc and the formation of the Federation


Men of a Certain Age premiers Monday night on TNT at 10PM. More info at the official site. Here are some clips:

Get to know Terry (Scott’s character)

Behind the Scenes with Scott

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m starting to watch Enterprise, few epis look quite good.

looking forward to the premiere of the MOACA. I’ll be watching.

Just re-watched seasons 3 and 4 of Enterprise. I liked it very much. Might have to go back and watch the first couple of seasons again, though I remember liking the last couple better.

I know Enterprise sparks a lot of controversy on this site but I really enjoyed it–especially season 4. I loved how they were hooking it into TOS and the arcs were very good–the genesis of Data, the Klingon foreheads, the Mirror Universe. I wish they had started doing that much earlier instead of the Xindi thing–while it was interesting, it wasn’t nearly as compelling IMHO. I felt cheated–it just started to come into its own when it was pulled. I, for one, would have loved more.

Enterprise really took off about midway through the second season. I really loved the third and I’m almost done with the fourth season. I think Archer (Scott Bakula) is a really fantastic character and a really interesting Captain figure. Honestly, he is the reason I continued to watch the show through the first season and a half. Love the reference in the new movie! I totally missed it the first time I saw it.

I always liked Enterprise, and I watched it when it aired, but my knowledge of Trekverse was very limited(I was about 12 or so), so I only saw it as more Star Trek coolness. I really liked the Xindi storyline, but now looking back, I do kinda wish they’d gotten into more stuff that the fourth season did. All in all, I was really disappointed when the show ended. I didn’t really watch Trek until the new movie came out.

“Bakula would have liked to explore … the formation of the Federation”

… which is what I thought the show was supposed to be about all along. A shame they didn’t really get to that until the fourth season when it was too late.

I would have love to have seen what Enterprise could have become if they were able to get J. Michael Straczynski aboard as a producer.

I would love to see Enterprise picked up again.. and would love to see an elderly Archer in the next film…. some nod to him being a bit of a hero to Kirk as a kid, would be great…

THere’s more of a chance of Scott Bakula getting into the next movie than Shatner. And it wouldn’t seem like a total gimmick with the precedence set in the first movie. Although how they explain him being still alive is going to be interesting, let alone still in the service.

And I was very dubious about his appearance in Enterprise initially, because I thought Quantum Leap was an epic snooze fest and he seemed to approach the character like a piece of IKEA flat-pack, but with more wood. I was pleasantly surprised when he managed to make his acting style work for Archer… and the return of the all-guns-blazing Starfleet captain in the mold of JTK (even though Picard is and will remain my favourite, with Sisko second… ssshhhhh). I would’ve been very interested to see where Enterprise was going, especially since I share the view of what most people think on here: it was finally starting to find it’s own feet, and the rug was pulled from beneath them all too soon. I would rather Enterprise than Voyager any day, or even the first couple of seasons of DS9. Hell, at least they weren’t going nowhere fast, and the ship had the right name.

And on a side note: Maaaatttttt Daaaamonnn

Yes, Enterprise will have to fill my sci fi/trek fix for now, until we get some sort of script leak for the next movie or when the next movies trailer(s)/film comes out. Which seems like a eternity BTW. Off to Best Buy to buy the complete Enterprise series, I guess. Would be interesting to see Enterprise pick up steam because of the public’s urge for Star Trek, wouldn’t that be something if 25 years later, they finally make a movie out of DS9/Voyager and/or Enterprise.

McCoy was still alive and apparently active when the Enterprise-D launched. I’m a little fuzzy as to the exact dates, but I’d wager that Archer would have been younger than the good Doctor was when he toured the D at the time of the movie.
Human life expectancy seems to be somewhat longer in the 23-24th centuries (as it should – pretty much every generation of humans have been living longer than the last since the renaissance). I remember several remarks on DS9 and TNG which seemed to suggest that it wasn’t at all unusual for humans to live 120-140 years, even if they didn’t take the best care of themselves. Admitedly Archer came from a much earlier era, but all those years on Enterprise with Phlox probably meant he was getting a better standard of care than most humans on Earth who wouldn’t have access to more advanced Denobulan medicine. So why should they have to explain anything as to why he’s still around fifty years or so after Enterprise ended? It’s a future where they can run a man’s body with a remote control.
Also, seconded on seeing Archer in the second film! I always felt that Enterprise was really a very solid show with a few glaringly bad episodes that overshadowed it (REGENERATION). It would be great to see Archer & Co. get a nod, particularly since they seem to be the one constant in both timelines.
Come to think of it, I wouldn’t object to perhaps seeing a glimpse of the NX-01 in the fleet museum either.

Love Enterprise. Never bothered to watch it, when it was on the air — VOY really just sucked the love for the franchis out of me.

I borrowed the DVD sets and now I’m hooked. The middle of the second season was pretty bad, but aside from that (and the Space Nazis episodes) it was a great, old-school sci-fi adventure show. It was like having a second TOS.

If you think about it…

A cameo from Bakula to play Archer in the next Trek movie would be very possible. It makes a lot of sense. It doesn’t even have to be a big role, maybe a couple lines. The fans would love it too.

I’ve been hoping for an Archer cameo since before the movie came out… Besides, I would much rather see Archer than Old Man Shat beating the horse we should have never seen die (ST:GEN). It’s finished, Bill. “He’s dead, Jim.”

According to the final episode of Enterprise, Archer died the day before the NCC-1701 was launched. Of course, that was in the prime timeline. I’m of the belief that when Nero destroyed the prime timeline, he changed the lives of Archer’s crew too. I believe that the Enterprise timeline was affected by Picard’s trip to the 21st century, which may not happen now that Nero did what he did. Therefore, while there may have been an Admiral Archer, he probably didn’t have the same life. So maybe he did live on.

You know, Archer doesn’t have to be 150 in STXI. Everyone seems to forget that he couldn’t go 4 episodes without jumping into the past or future. Maybe he just decided to stay? Maybe Daniels ditched him and wouldn;t send him back?

And Porthos is alive and well, at 150 years old, because of the alien-reptile-liver transplant he got in “A Night in Sickbay”. There’s probably a huge market in the future for those things, as everyone tries to give their pet an insane alien-lizard-thing lifespan.

They should have had Archer old and grey on the counsel of Admirals in STXI.

Also, #16: Stuff barely glimpsed on a screen in the background of an episode (that you need HD to see!) doesn’t count. What you said about Picards trip to the past being erased is wrong too: If Trek time travel worked like that, Nero would have erased *himself* the minute he destroyed Vulcan! No Vulcan = no Red Matter = no black hole.


^ Archer’s fate is mentioned on the U.S.S. Defiant’s computer from “In A Mirror, Darky Part II”. However that part of the screen doesn’t appear in the episode. Of course, canon is a bit lax of late anyhow… vital parts of the Star Trek XI’s plot seem to occur offscreen either in graphic novel form, or scenes left on the cutting room floor.

There are loads of reasons why Archer could’ve have made it to 2245 (the original timeline’s launch date for NCC-1701), putting aside medical advances that helped McCoy live to walk alongside Data even further ahead. Jonathan Archer carried Surak’s katra… he got injected with a virus derrived from the Augment gene responsible for smooth-headed Klingons… maybe he got kidnapped by a vengeful Future Guy after he fulfilled his role of founding the Federation and got put into carbonite deep freeze. LOL.

The lifespan issue can be reverted with advancement in molecular biology and being able to extract the soul/astral energy of a person and download into a new body which was cloned, now isn’t that one full of moral and ethical issues.

Wow, Guess that one slipped by me- the reference to Admiral Archer. I will have to watch ST09 again for the umpteenth time. Darn. I hate to have to watch it again… *wink

I hated the Archer reference. Ignoring Enterprise is relatively easy so long as people quit mentioning it.

One thing that disappoints me about the ending of Enterprise was that we never got to the Romulan War. Season 4 was so close to getting there. I think even a direct-to-dvd or TV miniseries would be fine and would make CS or Paramount or whoever would get that a gadzillion bucks. Which of us wouldn’t watch that? Even if it would lead to more criticism – we would still watch it. That’s where we we need more Archer!

Speaking of ENTERPRISE & TOS tie-ins, I remember reading somewhere that there was talk of bringing in the Kzinti as a “major foe” in Season Five, had it occurred.

sorry, Zebonka, but you’re gonna have to play along with the rest of us! Enterprise is the red-headed step-child of Star Trek but it is still a worth addition to the mythos… and I love especially how the later 24th century Pocket Books novels subtly weave its races, characters, and memorably events into its history – to me it adds a richness that it would be a shame to ignore.

I love all the comments from you guys going back and watching the DVD’s and seeing that Enterprise was a good show. Now if you all had only WATCHED it when it was on the air, it may have lasted seven seasons!!I for one watched it, even though i wasn’t fond of every episode it was still fun to watch for the most part. I too would have liked to see more elements from TOS, and Manny Coto was doing that in the fourth season, which with the exception of the finale, was Enterprises best season.


Steve T in NY:

One problem with ENT was that many Americans couldn’t even get it. I lived in Ithaca, NY at the time, and UPN was simply not on broadcast TV or the local cable system, and I imagine that such a scenario repeated itself throughout the US. Syracuse had it, Utica had it, but not my neck of the woods.

If only the folks in charge of season 4 had been on since season 1- might have gone better.

Not that many Americans couldn’t get it. UPN had coverage in about 95 percent of the country, maybe more. Enterprise’s ratings dropped dramatically after the premiere. Had the show been liked, the ratings would have been better. The show was terrible. It wasn’t good TV. It wasn’t good Star Trek, and arguably, had the show not been part of the Star Trek universe, or aired on any network OTHER than UPN, it never would have lasted a full season, let alone four.

It might have been better had Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses been in charge at the development stage and they followed Trek canon better.

Scott Bacula has stated that Enterprise was “on the wrong network” and that was the main reason for its being cancelled. SyFy would have been the preferred venue.

Gosh, Jolene Blalock is hot, I bet Quinto would hit that.


Enterprise was bounced around on our local UPN affiliate whenever an NBA game was on. I finally gave up in hopes of watching it on DVD one day, but I did manage to catch most of the 4th season on TV.

I always liked Bakula as an actor, and I thought ENT was doing much better toward the end of its run. It is a shame Manny Coto wasn’t there from Day One.

i enjoyed Enterprise…i mean, not as good as the other rendetions of star Trek, Voyager the exception, but it wasn’t bad..

all of these people on this site that’s saying “it was good” ” i liked it” etc, if you would have watched it, it’d still be on the air!

I watched and enjoyed TNG because it was easily accessible, I wasn’t even sure which channel or time, Enterprise was on. I did catch a great epis where Trip became pregnant while helping out a alien craft tailgating the Enterprise for energy. If anything, I think ST09 help reinvigorate our thirst for Trek, I believe that is why many are going back watching it now. As we all know where’s no Trek on TV now :(

29. Yeah, If I remember correctly, It wasn’t just Enterprise that failed, I believe the whole UPN network died not long after the cancellation.

#26 and #28—I also didn’t get UPN until a few years later when I switched to Directv. I did see a couple of episodes of the first season at a friend’s house who happened to have satellite, but I did not actually watch the entire series until it had already been cancelled and I bought the dvd collection.

If UPN covered 95% of Americans at the time, I suppose I (like AJ) was part of that other 5%.

The later end of season three and the final season were terrific for the most part. It finally started to show some real heart and felt like a prequel to TOS, instead of just a prequel to the 24th Century spinoffs….at least until Riker and Troi showed up in a holdeck….

I recommend it to any Star Trek fan who hasn’t yet seen it—-just be patient with some of the crap in the first two seasons and know that the Manny Coto episodes (starting with “Similitude” and for all practical purposes ending with “Terra Prime”) are well worth the wait. Good stuff.

I don’t think that UPN was the reason for the show’s cancellation though.

If I’m not mistaken, DS9 was on UPN too. And that lasted 7 seasons.

I just feel that the Berman formula had worn thin, and it wasn’t until Coto came aboard (when the show was walking dead) that it actually had something to offer….and while I wouldn’t call it too little, it was definitely too late.

I must have been the only one, but I watched all 4 seasons. The only only season I bought on DVD, however, was season 4, for all the reasons stated above. It finally started feeling like trek then, which is why many of us probably want to see it back – it finally left us wanting more.

By the way, DS9 was in syndication as well. Its premiere was the highest rated syndicated even to that time. Voyager was, unfortunately for UPN, UPN’s first trek show.

#37-DS9 was NOT on UPN, it was syndicated, just like TNG. Voyager was on UPN, if I recall. Not only was Voyager and bad show overall, it was on a bad network. Enterprise had no chance, following something like that (Voyager) on the same bad network. Voyager had potential that it never met. Enterprise had potential that it met once in a while in seasons 1 & 2, picked up momentum in season 3, and then Coto got hired and 80-90% of season 4 was awesome. Had he been there at the start and if it had been in syndication, who knows where things might have gone?

Oh well, glad things made Star Trek 2009 possible. I’d love to see Archer in the next one, along with Pike (out of a wheelchair). Would be a great reminder that we are not in the prime universe anymore.

Great Interview! I still miss Enterprise terribly, but it was great while it lasted and Scott Bakula is just awesome.

Great Interview Anthony. I would love to see Scott in the Next trek Movie. I loved Enterprise and as with everyone else Season 4 was the best and We all can just imagine if they were given those 3 or more seasons and what could have been. I think that Orci and the Court should bring back Enterprise and have manny Coto pick up almost where we left off. But Disreguard the last Ep. These are the Voyages as that was just a Stupid Mistake.

Bob Orci. Bring Back Enterprise and let’s have the Romulan Wars and the formation of the federation and bring in Manny Cotto.

Oh for the love of god, not another one hoping to be in the next film! They really do all need to realise they are done.
And The Informant- what a weird film. I thought it made for uncomfortable viewing. I just didn’t know what I was supposed to find entertaining about this clearly sick man (Damons charcter). And Bakula was, well, Bakula. I once rated him (Quantum Leap) but these days not so much.

#21 I agree with you. It needlessly cheapened the whole movie for me.

I watched all four seasons when it aired. Getting through 2 and 3 were quite the slog though. Show improved SO much when Coto took over. Pity it was too late.

(Still haven’t seen all of VOY though. I got too tired of “RESET BUTTON” every week.)

Why do people hate Voyager? I liked it. There are some really well written episodes. And there was 7 of 9!

Could someone explain to me why Voyager is so hated? I’m confused.

My thoughts on the failure of Enterprise was that the show had a ton of promise after one season. When season two and three came along, it seemed to take a very dark tone with little time for examining the characters.

It seemed as if Archer wore a frown the entire two season. Not fun to watch.

#47″ It seemed as if Archer wore a frown the entire two season. Not fun to watch”

So true Desertrat. A joyless, souless, depressing experience. A chapter in Trek history I’m happy to forget.

I really enjoyed Enterprise. Always did from the moment it aired to the moment it ended. I’ve read “The Good That Men Do” and “Kobayashi Maru,” and I’m about a quarter of the way through “Beneath the Raptors Wings.” I just can’t get enough of it. I think a brief cameo by Bakula would be great, whether it be as a portrait at Starfleet or as a brief scene.