Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[ENT] Jammer's Review: "Daedalus"

Expand Messages
  • Jamahl Epsicokhan
    Note: This review contains significant spoilers. In brief: It ain t no Visitor. Plot description: Emory Erickson, the inventor of the transporter, comes
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 18, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Note: This review contains significant spoilers.


      In brief: It ain't no "Visitor."

      Plot description: Emory Erickson, the inventor of the transporter, comes
      aboard the Enterprise to perform a risky experiment while harboring a secret
      from his past.

      -----
      Star Trek: Enterprise - "Daedalus"

      Airdate: 1/14/2005 (USA)
      Written by Ken LaZebnik & Michael Bryant
      Directed by David Straiton

      Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan
      Rating out of 4: **

      "When I materialized, the first thing I did was lose my lunch. The second
      thing I did was get stone drunk. Trick I learned form Zefram Cochrane. Now
      there was a man who knew the benefits of a little liquid courage." -- Emory
      Erickson on the first human transport, performed on himself
      -----

      To write a review of "Daedalus" is to extract small victories from an
      overall failed episode. Here's a plot too transparent for its own good --
      painfully inevitable by what seems to be intentional design -- yet with
      characters who are invested with believable qualities. But even though we
      may believe the central character is psychologically possible, his arc is
      developed from ancient archetypes, and nothing in the plot can possibly
      emerge as unexpected. The emotional payoff is so preordained, so inevitable,
      that it carries very little impact. The show sinks because nothing is ever
      in doubt.

      For a sci-fi concept that evaluates the tragedy of losing a loved one to a
      fate more complicated than death, you may find your mind going back to DS9's
      "The Visitor," a show infinitely better than this one.

      In "Daedalus," the brilliant scientific mind of Emory Erickson (Bill Cobbs),
      the inventor of the transporter, comes aboard the Enterprise with his
      daughter Danica (Leslie Silva) to conduct a scientific experiment for a new
      type of extremely long-range transporter that could in theory beam a person
      across light-years of space. In a line inspired by "The Ultimate Computer,"
      Archer jokingly asks Emory if he intends to put starship captains out of
      business.

      Emory was one of Archer's father's closest friends, and has been "like a
      second father" to Archer. Danica is, by extension, like a sister. But
      there's trouble quietly brewing. The first sign that something is wrong
      comes when we discover They Are Hiding Something. Danica tells Emory that
      she feels awful about lying to Archer about the real reason they are out
      here. The real reason quickly becomes obvious, although the dialog takes its
      time in getting to the scene where it's spelled out for us. It can be
      frustrating to be so far ahead of the plot revelations. The revelations,
      when they come, are more like confirmations.

      The would-be experiment is being conducted in the Barrens, where "there's
      not a star system within 100 light-years." To briefly nitpick the jargon, I
      would like to point out that how far away you are from the nearest star
      system would depend on, well, how far into the starless region you've
      actually ventured.

      About this time, a strange anomaly begins appearing on the ship. In a scene
      that is humorous in the way it pointlessly tries to be suspenseful, the
      anomaly makes all the lights in the armory go out. Lt. Reed and a nameless
      guy we've never seen before go walking slowly through the dark with their
      flashlights, trying to find the cause of the disturbance. Honestly, if the
      nameless guy hadn't died, the audience would've justly rioted. Obviously, a
      situation like this is the reason that red shirts will be invented at some
      point between Archer's time and Kirk's.

      Cutting to the chase: Fifteen years ago, during a similar experiment, Emory
      sent his own son Quinn (i.e., Icarus) through a transporter beam. Quinn
      never materialized and was lost in transport. This experiment also took
      place in the Barrens. No points for surmising that 2+2=4, and that the
      anomaly is actually Quinn, trapped in some state of eternal transporter
      limbo (Alive? Dead? Who knows?), and that Emory and Danica have actually
      come aboard the Enterprise because they think they can rescue Quinn. Why
      must this be a secret? Beats me, although the story concocts a halfhearted
      reason. Why does the Quinn-anomaly seem to chase after people like a
      creature in a monster movie? I couldn't say. I suppose being trapped in
      transporter limbo for 15 years might piss you off a little.

      The outcome of the story is never, for a moment, in doubt. We have no doubt
      that Emory's deception must be exposed, that his obsession will lead to
      urgent pleas to Archer, and appeals to his emotions (Quinn, go figure, was
      like a brother to him). And we have no doubt that the rescue attempt upon
      Quinn will end in failure, and that an old man's obsession to right a wrong
      from 15 years ago will only end up destroying him.

      Fifteen years ago, Emory knew -- but was in denial about -- the possible
      risks, and that he could theoretically even lose his son. He went through
      with it anyway, because of his need to further advance transporter
      technology. The story's argument is that great minds are clouded by their
      own need to top themselves. Emory was relatively young when he invented the
      transporter, and from that point "there was nowhere to go but down." I
      wonder why it is people like this feel so much pressure to top their own
      breakthrough. Isn't it enough to revolutionize transportation in your
      society? Is it pure narcissism that drives a man to need this much
      achievement at any cost?

      The irony of the situation is Emory's attempt to right a wrong by committing
      yet another wrong -- lying to Archer -- which indirectly causes the death of
      the crew member. Obviously, the writers are setting this man up for an
      inevitably tragic downfall (reckless actions are rarely rewarded in these
      types of stories). At times, Emory's sadness and regret approaches a
      poignancy, but the story can't carry the notions through to the end.

      The problem is that this all comes across as going through the motions, and
      Emory, while a character whose flaws and obsessions we come to understand,
      and who is nicely performed by veteran character actor Bill Cobbs, is a man
      we pity more because of his own inability to turn the mirror on his own
      actions than because of his dilemma and obsession. His hope is that he can
      redeem himself by rescuing his son. Part of me thinks a man this brilliant
      should be incapable of such blindness. (But then ultimately the whole reason
      for his deception feels contrived.)

      Then there's Archer. He reluctantly agrees to see the rescue attempt
      through, even despite all the initial lies and the dead man lying in
      sickbay. Trip challenges Archer on this decision, accusing him of letting
      personal feelings get in the way of the ship's safety. I certainly can't say
      Trip is wrong. And Archer laying down the chain of command and making these
      kinds of questionable decisions without consequences is getting a little
      old.

      Still, there are good things to find here. I liked the overall familiarity
      between Archer, Emory, and Danica -- and Danica's dilemma of putting her
      life on hold to take care of an elderly parent. Despite the fact these are
      invented characters inserted retroactively into Archer's backstory, the
      actors do a good job of making the relationships believable. I also liked
      the credible notes in Trip's hero-worship of Emory. Trip is initially in awe
      of this man, and there's a scene early on where Emory tries to use this
      against Trip to get him to surrender control of the experiment. Trip tries
      to remain gracious even as he senses the old man trying to strong-arm him
      into something. Later, after the deception is revealed, Trip feels bitterly
      disappointed and betrayed, in scenes of equal believability.

      In the periphery, it's also good to see that T'Pol is still reeling after
      all the Vulcan upheaval as a result of "Kir'Shara." She finds all of her
      beliefs being challenged by the newly unveiled writings of Surak. While the
      sweeping changes across Vulcan seem a little swift in their depiction, it is
      nice to see the storyline followed up.

      Less successful is the Trip/T'Pol "breakup" scene at the end, which seems as
      clueless as the rest of their "relationship." I find it amusing that the
      writers think they need a scene like this when considering that after the
      "relationship" supposedly began with the sex in "Harbinger," T'Pol has since
      been married and divorced -- and only now feels that Trip needs an
      explanation. (I suppose what happens here is more of an answer than a
      breakup, but still -- the whole thing is just silly. Perhaps now we can move
      beyond the will-they-or-won't-they question.)

      The emotional payoff, in which the rescue of Quinn is attempted and
      (inevitably) fails, is too much acting for what is not nearly enough story.
      Simply put, I never knew Quinn as a human being, and I just didn't care
      about him. And it seems to me that Emory's character arc ends up being too
      soft. Something like this, which has consumed the last 15 years of his
      life -- should be crushing when it ends in failure. But the episode wants to
      let us off the hook by dodging anything too depressing. (And I don't even
      want to ask all the logical/tech questions about how Quinn survives 15 years
      in a transporter beam, but only now, conveniently, does Emory theorize that
      his signal is on the verge of degrading.)

      Bottom line: This show is too dead at its core, as opposed to a show like
      "The Visitor," which was a lyrical journey that was alive and vibrant.

      --
      Next week: Aliens study the Enterprise crew.

      -----
      Copyright 2005, Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved.
      Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this article is prohibited.

      Star Trek: Hypertext - http://www.st-hypertext.com/
      Jamahl Epsicokhan - jammer@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.