View Single Post
Old July 24 2012, 10:23 PM   #343
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Christopher wrote: View Post
iarann wrote: View Post
But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military.
Which was BS, because it's obviously military in its forms and structure.
Hey, don't get mad at me, I didn't make that up.

Christopher wrote: View Post
iarann wrote: View Post
Sure I do, I say that about lots of things in Star Trek.
So if you were on a jury and they showed you surveillance footage of the defendant robbing a bank, and the defense claim was that he was possessed by ghosts and made to do it against his will, would you say "why not?" and vote for acquittal? This is basic reasoning. In the absence of certain knowledge, the more likely interpretation is favored over the less likely one. That's what "likely" means!
What part of "lots of things in Star Trek" didn't you understand? My willing suspension of disbelief when watching a science fiction show far closer to fantasy than science is not going to fit how I would look at things on a jury in real life.

Here's the thing you seem to not understand, not all of us treat Star Trek as we would a religious text, trying to explain away inconsistencies and such. I understand it's your job and you wrote a couple of great novels doing so, but when I watch Star Trek I just assume continuity and science are going to be secondary concerns at best. If the next movie has a couple of 200 year old people just show up and no one thinks twice, I'm not going to sit and think "No way! In almost 50 years of Star Trek they have never inferred people live to be 200". Instead I'll just think "Eh, Star Trek" and keep watching.

Christopher wrote: View Post
I've already explained the difference between those two situations. The available evidence strongly supports it being McCoy. We have no actual canonical evidence that the admiral is Jonathan Archer instead of his daughter or grandson or something. It's simply a matter of following the evidence. If there were any real evidence that it was Jonathan rather than a different Archer, then I'd accept that, just as I accept that the guy who looks and talks and acts like McCoy is almost certainly McCoy. But since there is no conclusive evidence for that, and since it's so unlikely, I remain skeptical.
It's not strong evidence, but it is evidence. They made an in joke about Admiral Archer's beagle. The writers said that reference referred to the Jonathan Archer whose adventures were chronicled in Star Trek: Enterprise. Based on that evidence it was easy to come up with a basic workaround for how he could still be alive (146 is old then like 90 is old now) and why they called him Admiral (he decided he wants people to call him that). I'm not making crazy assumptions any more than the people that created the movie did. I'm sorry that bothers you, but if you don't like it you can stick with your hypothesis of Admiral Archer the Third, and others of us will stick with the Jonathan Archer theory. That movie was full of scientific holes, Jonathan Archer surviving to his 140s is the least of what I would think people would freak out about.
iarann is offline   Reply With Quote