There's reason enough for me to interpret it easily.
Yes, you made that clear.
That’s 34 years difference. Is it possible? Yes. My wife and I not have our first child until we were in our late 30s. But the average age for having kids is 31. The idea that three generations in a row had kids later in life ain’t bloody likely. It’s a big assumption.
Hey, I recoiled at first at the in-universe date change myself. Now I'm at peace with it. The wars still happen with the same people, the same death toll and in the same countries and have the same impact on history. History as we knew it is basically the same. Two dates changed.
I can live with it, to quote a famous Starfleet Captain, and if my exhaustingly nitpicky nerd carcass can, then so can others.
I can live with it, to quote a famous Starfleet Captain, and if my exhaustingly nitpicky nerd carcass can, then so can others.
Its been bloody likely in my family.
1978 Archers great grandfather is born
2026 Archers grandfather is born
2074 Archers father is born
2112 Johnathan Archer is born
Easy as pumpkin pie.
Last edited:
Yours would be an edge case. Again, is it possible? Sure. But averages come into play. But if it helps you sleep at night, sure. Archer’s ancestors were older when they had kids.
Last edited:
My great-grandmother was born 79 years before I was. If Archer's great-grandfather was also born about 80 years before he was, that would make him of military recruitment or draft age in the late 2040s, still pretty close to when the Eugenics Wars would have happened and still earlier than the World War III nuclear exchange.
A lot of Americans and other nations' soldiers fighting in the War on Terror were teenagers or in their twenties in Afghanistan and Iraq and in other theaters of operation. The impression Archer gave me in "Hatchery" was that his ancestor was an infantryman fighting on a battlefield. Not exactly the kind of person I'd picture being middle aged or even older.
A lot of Americans and other nations' soldiers fighting in the War on Terror were teenagers or in their twenties in Afghanistan and Iraq and in other theaters of operation. The impression Archer gave me in "Hatchery" was that his ancestor was an infantryman fighting on a battlefield. Not exactly the kind of person I'd picture being middle aged or even older.
I mean, Gene treated TOS as dramatizations of Kirk's logs. At some point a refit doesn't cover it and I go with what my eyes tell me.
I dunno. Things look pretty different between "All Good Things..." and ST: First Contact, and that's only a few years difference too.
As for what Gene thought: He wanted TMP to invalidate TOS and be its own thing, because he no longer owned TOS. Then when he was executive producer of TNG, he wanted that show to invalidate TOS and every TOS film that wasn't TMP, and be its own thing too, because he didn't own any of those things either. Except when he no longer had creative control, the people in charge ignored his intent and just treated it all as the same continuity, which everyone does to this day.
That explains a lot. Including the suddenly slower warp speeds from TOS and TAS.
He didn't "own" TNG either.
He was showrunner and executive producer, and Paramount gave him free reign to do whatever he wanted, including rewriting scripts to suit his own purposes.
(Well, he didn't get a three-breasted Troi or Ferengi with oversized testicles, but that goes without saying.)
I'm good with treating it separately as Gene did. TMP through VOY works pretty well. TMP shifts the people, personalities, and ship's construction is too much to buy as a refit.
Which is why it's easier to treat it as separate.
Ironically the Star Fleet Battles official timeline, https://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Timeline.pdf , based on the tabletop game which spun off from Star Trek, is going to age better because it has a pure floating timeline without any real world years attached like Trek does.
All this arguing about age reminds me of one thing: I wish they had cast a younger actor as Archer. Bakula might have been ok in the early 90s, but he always struck me as too old pushing 50. Should have had someone like Nathan Fillion or close to that age or at least with that youthful swagger. Bakula in 2001 seemed more suited as a high school history teacher boring all his students to sleep.
You can interpret Spock as a Martian, if you please, but that would be a dull and pointless debate.That is true. And despite that, I may interpret it as I please.
Just like this one.
Watch out for zebra crossings.
Condescension aside, I interpret your fav show as being its own thing rather than a TOS prequel. I hope that doesn’t disturb your sleeping habits too much.
Movies are stupid.
Star Trek has never really done good with movies, it's done adequate at best.
Where Star Trek shines is being a show you can shop out to other networks that can run re-run blocks of them. Something the current "streaming era" has completely failed to take advantage of.
Similar threads
