But do you like Mike?Not all Mikes look alike.
News Exclusive: Scott Bakula Eyeing Star Trek Return In President Archer Series Pitch From ‘Enterprise’ Producer
- Thread starter Laura Cynthia Chambers
- Start date
He's Magic. 
The Presidential shuttle can have a special computer installed for the President:
Assistant Librarian, that looks things up for President Archer.
"A.L. says there is a 90% chance the shuttle toilet is clogged."
Assistant Librarian, that looks things up for President Archer.
"A.L. says there is a 90% chance the shuttle toilet is clogged."
I think the John Eaves NX-01 concept could full that void rather nicely. In my own head-canon, the design is one of the new Warp Seven Beauties mentioned in TATV.
*Yes, I colorized the design with A.I.
Too J.J.-like.
Plus, it's not a shuttle.
Plus, it's not a shuttle.
J.J.-like? I’m not seeing it. If anything, it’s much closer to the DSC/SNW Enterprise, which makes sense considering Eaves designed both.
I’m also of the mind that the President of the United Federation of Planets, an organization of immense size, power, and influence, would travel on something a little more substantial than a shuttle, even if it’s a big one.
And those ships look too J.J. like, too. The stardrive section on that drawing looks like a Federation warp nacelle from a J.j. film.
One of my nicknames at work, actually. And I still have people doing "Mike Mike Mike...what day is it?He's Magic.
You need to get your eyes checked.
What for?
Enterprise died in 2005. Why resurrect the dead? Why bring in a creaking, 70-year-old Scott Bakula?
Archer had the charisma of a ham sandwich. I've never been crazy about him (I watched Picard more for Seven of Nine than Jean-Luc).
Me:
Neither is likely to happen, but I’d take an Archer series over Legacy any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
One would explore one of the most fascinating and largely untapped eras in Federation history, actually trying to do something new with the franchise, while the other is just another rehash of the same tired era we’ve already seen across nearly 650 episodes of television and four movies, with the same characters and the same bland early 25th-century setting.
Legacy feels creatively bankrupt, nostalgia pretending to be progress.
One would explore one of the most fascinating and largely untapped eras in Federation history, actually trying to do something new with the franchise, while the other is just another rehash of the same tired era we’ve already seen across nearly 650 episodes of television and four movies, with the same characters and the same bland early 25th-century setting.
Legacy feels creatively bankrupt, nostalgia pretending to be progress.
We just got through with the 23rd century with Strange New Worlds (with sixteen episodes left to go). Paramount has a Star Trek: Origins feature film in development.
How many more "Birth of the Federation" projects am I going to have to sit through? (Especially when they're peopled with characters who are as dull as dishwater.)
Is it absolutely necessary to explore EVERY era in detail? I'm not particularly interested in "The Lost Period" (The only thing that changes are the uniforms!
)
Sure they do. I'll believe that when they actually start filming, and even then I'll have my doubts.
The closest we’ve come to that was Enterprise, and even it didn’t cover the early days of the Federation. So we’ve had to sit through approximately zero “Birth of the Federation” series. Never mind that the proposal for this Archer series covers his tenure as President of the UFP, more than 20 years into the Federation’s formation.
What for?
Enterprise died in 2005. Why resurrect the dead? Why bring in a creaking, 70-year-old Scott Bakula?
Archer had the charisma of a ham sandwich. I've never been crazy about him (I watched Picard more for Seven of Nine than Jean-Luc).
Me:
For me anyway…President Archer is much more interesting than Captain Seven, especially given the setting. She was a much more interesting character in Picard S1 and 2 when she was a Ranger. Her as just another Starfleet Captain…meh.
That said, I’m gonna watch whatever they put out. At least give it a try. And there is a good chance it’s neither show.
Watching the crew bumble over early transporters and "phase pistols" made for painful viewing.
She left the Rangers for a reason (She almost DIED in S2. Had she not had her friends around her, no one would've noticed she was gone.)
IMHC, she was tired of the grind and of her hand-to-mouth existence.
Beat the hell out of watching the crew of Voyager bumble their way through the Delta Quadrant on a perfectly pristine Starship.
Hell, you can say what you want about Enterprise, but its cast felt the most human and relatable out of any of the the Berman-era crews.
That annoyed a lot of people (Ronald D. Moore did on nuBSG what he was not allowed to do on Voyager -- a show featuring a crew that was hanging on by their fingernails to survive).
People watch Star Trek to be ENTERTAINED. It was never to be a historical record.
Life sux as is. No one wants to turn on the TV and be reminded of it.
Then why the premise that Voyager is stranded if you don't want to put significant limitations on their resources?
It was UPN's decision.
They figured they could up the ratings if they made the show TNG-lite.
Similar threads
