Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" - Page 4

Guy Gardener · November 29 2012, 06:34 AM

We were led to believe at that after Cold Front that we were viewing an alternate timeline from where none of the previous series and movies would ever manifest.

Kathryn Janeway might never have been born because Johnny Archer lived!

teacake · November 29 2012, 07:18 AM

Future Guy would be the patron saint of the Treklit forum if that was the case.

And Chakotay might have been giving his angry warrior speech to Riker who would have weasled his way into that power vacuum.

The angry warrior swore to himself that he would stay by Will's side, doing whatever he could to make his burden lighter.

Hmm..

Guy Gardener · November 29 2012, 08:22 AM

Yeah, I'm thinking of facetoilets too,

King Daniel Into Darkness · November 29 2012, 10:46 AM

Melakon wrote:

One thing that always bothered me about Enterprise-- there were several races we never heard of before (Suliban, the Xindi races) and events that were never heard about again in the chronological timeline of the later (earlier) series. Was this ever explained?

One thing I did like was references to races/systems that would later be destroyed (Malurians).

90% of the races from The Original Series were never seen or heard from again in Next Gen, DS9 or Voyager, either. Virtually none of the cool background aliens from The Motion Picture nor the aliens that made up the Federation council in The Voyage Home nor the aliens from JJ's Star Trek ever crop up in chronologically later Treks.

I like to think those aliens are always there, but always just off-camera.

teacake · November 29 2012, 10:49 AM

And Enterprise did the wondrous thing of giving us Andorians and Tellarites which had barely been seen since TOS.

gblews · November 29 2012, 09:35 PM

Harvey wrote:

This actually could have made for a nice twist, had the writers thought of it when they originated the future guy story-line.

I agree. But I just would not have wanted Future Guy's storyline to have been written by Brannon -- or Rick Berman either.

Midas · December 3 2012, 06:04 PM

Archer being FG would have been quite the logical stretch, IMO.

Charlie Kelly · December 3 2012, 06:24 PM

Guy Gardener wrote:

We were led to believe at that after Cold Front that we were viewing an alternate timeline from where none of the previous series and movies would ever manifest.

Kathryn Janeway might never have been born because Johnny Archer lived!

It's possible that Enterprise wasn't supposed to blow up in the original timeline but some previous event which was changed by the Future Guy faction of the TCW lead to the incident as an unexpected consequence. Maybe Silik was just putting right what once went wrong...

Saul · December 3 2012, 06:58 PM

I like the idea of Archer as Future guy, it's surprising and makes sense too. Better than some unknown Romulan for the future. Wooo...

DanCPA · December 4 2012, 03:52 AM

Saul wrote:

I like the idea of Archer as Future guy.

Would have been a very interesting twist. I'm sure a good writer could have pulled it off...

Gaith · December 4 2012, 04:40 AM

No. There is no timeline in which this could have been a good idea.

King Daniel Into Darkness · December 4 2012, 11:14 AM

A few fans were unhappy with Star Trek's implication that Archer lived to be 150 and knew Kirk and Scotty at the academy. To be Future Guy, he'd have had to live to be approximately 600.

teacake · December 4 2012, 11:26 AM

But if he was Future Guy he obviously has time at his fingertips so who knows how old he would be. Old enough to be bitter though.

I like the idea of old, bitter, petty Archer pissing around in the timelines sucking on his teeth.

Skywalker · December 4 2012, 11:41 AM

He's just mad because everybody liked Trip more than they liked him.

Donald Draper · December 4 2012, 11:54 AM

Ancient Archer in the future? NO. Its simple and obvious = TIME TRAVEL.

I always thought the only satisfying reveal for "Future Guy" would be a known character. Which given how far in the future he was means he is stuck in a time he is not from.

An older time displaced Archer is a theory I had when the show was first aired.

November 29 2012, 06:34 AM	#46
Guy Gardener Admiral Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" We were led to believe at that after Cold Front that we were viewing an alternate timeline from where none of the previous series and movies would ever manifest. Kathryn Janeway might never have been born because Johnny Archer lived! __________________ "Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft." Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz

November 29 2012, 07:18 AM	#47
teacake Admiral Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" Future Guy would be the patron saint of the Treklit forum if that was the case. And Chakotay might have been giving his angry warrior speech to Riker who would have weasled his way into that power vacuum. The angry warrior swore to himself that he would stay by Will's side, doing whatever he could to make his burden lighter. Hmm.. __________________ Rider: I can't believe you'd kill me for a field of empty holes. J'onn: It's all I have. ■ ■ ■ Janeway does Melbourne

November 29 2012, 08:22 AM	#48
Guy Gardener Admiral Location: In the lap of squalor I assure you.	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" Yeah, I'm thinking of facetoilets too, __________________ "Glitter is the herpes of arts and craft." Troy Yingst. My Life as Liz

November 29 2012, 10:49 AM	#50
teacake Admiral Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" And Enterprise did the wondrous thing of giving us Andorians and Tellarites which had barely been seen since TOS. __________________ Rider: I can't believe you'd kill me for a field of empty holes. J'onn: It's all I have. ■ ■ ■ Janeway does Melbourne

December 3 2012, 06:04 PM	#52
Midas Lieutenant Junior Grade	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" Archer being FG would have been quite the logical stretch, IMO.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

December 3 2012, 06:58 PM	#54
Saul Rear Admiral Location: 東京	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" I like the idea of Archer as Future guy, it's surprising and makes sense too. Better than some unknown Romulan for the future. Wooo... __________________ "It's not that you can see the strings, it's that 40 years later you're still looking at them." - Steven Moffat "This movie was big. Imagine how big it could have been with me in it?" William Shatner

December 4 2012, 04:40 AM	#56
Gaith Rear Admiral Location: Starfleet Command, The City that Knows How	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" No. There is no timeline in which this could have been a good idea.

December 4 2012, 11:14 AM	#57
King Daniel Into Darkness Admiral Location: KingDaniel has fallen Into Darkness (in England)	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" A few fans were unhappy with Star Trek's implication that Archer lived to be 150 and knew Kirk and Scotty at the academy. To be Future Guy, he'd have had to live to be approximately 600. __________________ Star Trek Imponderables, fun video mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors. Episode One Episode Two

December 4 2012, 11:26 AM	#58
teacake Admiral Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" But if he was Future Guy he obviously has time at his fingertips so who knows how old he would be. Old enough to be bitter though. I like the idea of old, bitter, petty Archer pissing around in the timelines sucking on his teeth. __________________ Rider: I can't believe you'd kill me for a field of empty holes. J'onn: It's all I have. ■ ■ ■ Janeway does Melbourne

December 4 2012, 11:41 AM	#59
Skywalker Admiral	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" He's just mad because everybody liked Trip more than they liked him.

December 4 2012, 11:54 AM	#60
Donald Draper Fleet Captain	Re: Braga: "Archer was supposed to be Future Guy" Ancient Archer in the future? NO. Its simple and obvious = TIME TRAVEL. I always thought the only satisfying reveal for "Future Guy" would be a known character. Which given how far in the future he was means he is stuck in a time he is not from. An older time displaced Archer is a theory I had when the show was first aired.