I found Scott Bakula's segments to be probably the most entertaining on the documentary but I found the big revelation that came with him... is that he seems to entirely blame the failure of Enterprise on his fellow crew/castmates.
Ouch.
No, it seems that he doesn't blame them as he stated that he enjoyed working with them. It's placing a retrospect towards audience on how they connected together on the show. Most audiences felt that their characters didn't 'connect' like the original show did; or rather how he percieves that to be.
shareI don't think he meant it that way. I think he meant that sometimes a cast just doesn't connect. Everyone on the cast may be talented, but sometimes that chemistry just isn't there.
shareScott is a total pro! Even if he felt that way he'd never ever say it in an interview. Enterprise suffered the consequences of "Trek Fatigue." by 2004 Star Trek had saturated the entertainment landscape. Most people viewed the casts, shows, & movies as formulaic & predictable. When TNG started in 1987, Star Trek only had an occasional movie every few years up to that point. Then after TNG demand picked up. By 1996, there were 2 series in production, movies, churning out, & merchandise of every kind flooding the market. It's no surprise that it couldn't maintain such a pace. Star Trek needed a break as much as people needed a break from it. Atleast this time we only had a 5 year wait vs a 10 year wait. And when it came back in 2009, it was bigger than ever. I don't think the cancellation of Enterprise can be blamed on any 1 reason. It was a conflux of events dating back 17 years at that point.
share[deleted]
It wasn't Trek fatigue, it was just a poorly written, executed, and acted show. Not to mention that it seemed to suffer from network meddling more than any of the other next gen series.
The writers that made Trek great just weren't around anymore by the end.
Bakula was good. But I liked the Patrick Stewart interview the best.
Avery Brooks made his segments quite unique though.
His interview segments seemed to be the most down to earth and honest.
I didn't care for Enterprise but I did enjoy him in this.
http://www.13tongimp.com/
My opinion differs from his. I thought there was great connectivity in the crew of the show. My own discomfort with the series -- which I eventually watched on Netflix, but not when it was running on TV -- was the same syndrome that never let me get into Smallville. That featured a less than super Superman. And Enterprise featured a less than fully realized Star Trek continuum. Polarized hull plating vs shields. Iffy transporter. Slower warp. It was a step backward, compared to the step forward of TNG, DS9 and Voyager. I didn't enjoy a Star Trek series with less goodies. A more primitive ship. Oh, yeah, one other thing. The writing was simply not as good as any of the other series. I liked the beagle, though.
shareHe placed just as much blame on himself as anyone else...and in any case there is no "blame" to go around. Like he says...you can't create chemistry, it just happens, and unfortunately people thought it didn't happen with them.
I of course am fine with any show that shows me the lovely Jolene Blalock!
I don't think so. He explained how chemistry is kind of magic and not something you can design. It doesn't really matter how good the actors are. I think only DS9 has managed to match the original series in that aspect.
shareI enjoyed his parts too. He's very charming, but definitely believes Enterprise was miscast. I think I agree.
shareI liked his segments of the documentary, but he did really take a dump on his cast mates.
shareI don't actually agree with Bakula. I thought the cast did have chemistry especially Archer, Trip and T'Pol. Travis was woefully underwritten and eventually Hoshi did get better storylines. Not sure if Bakula was quite right for the role though and what damaged Enterprise was the poor storylines. Some are rewatchable but a t aren't. Unlike TNG, DS9 and Voyager.
share