Talk is cheap. All I'm seeing is a lame excuse for not calling a reboot a reboot. It's still a difference that makes no difference.
4 Clip descriptions from Empire *Spoiler heavy*
- Thread starter datas_cat_spot
- Start date
I for one have no idea who Andy Bathgate is. But that's because I have no familiarity with hockey. Anyone with any kind of familiarity with Trek knows who Robert April is.
It's a difference that makes no difference? Whatever most people are through listening to you anyway. Go ahead and hate the movie all you want it still isn't going to ruin anyone elses good time.
You're candor has been appreciated but now that we see that you have no point other than railing at something you don't like, please stand in line and wait your turn. You're turn for what, I'm not sure you seem to be a very hard man to please.
Yes he's a footnote in the Trek encyclopedia and has only been mentioned in TOS in the Animated episodes whose Canon is still under question.
In other words only anal compulsive fans who enjoy knowing all the minor minutiea that may never be reused in a story give a rats ass who April is. Seeing as he's been Push so far out in the trek spotlight over the ye... Wait what HE HASN'T That's right one TAS episode and no other mentions that I know of...
From Wiki...
The character's only appearance is in the Star Trek: The Animated Series episode "The Counter-Clock Incident",[4] in which he is voiced by James Doohan and portrayed as the first captain of the USS Enterprise.[2] However, the decision by Paramount Pictures, studio owners of the franchise, and series creator Gene Roddenberry to not consider the animated series to be part of the official Star Trek canon has led to debate as to whether April and his place as first captain, is actually a part of Star Trek continuity.[5]
Like I said previously, someone will only be familiar with April if they watched one specific episode of TAS, have read very specific novels, or have enough time on their hands to join a Star Trek intenet board. The only reason I know April is is because I came here. So the only people who know who April is is going to be fans with a very wide knowledge of Trek, not "anyone with any kind of familiarity". If the writers want to make a meaningful joke, Archer is going to mean a lot more to a lot more people than April will.
Speaking of April, I know I've asked this once all ready, but I figured I would give it one more shot: what specifically are you hating about this movie or is leading you to believe it will be "Bad Trek"? Is it just the ship? The uniforms? Or is there something else that gives you your motive. To be entirely honest, it would be easier to take your arguments seriously if I knew there was something else behind your hatred of the movie besides the look of the ship.
Bullshit. Let me repeat that. BULLSHIT! This is such an absurd statement I cannot even begin to describe the extent of its absurdity.
Whatever--it's clear that the fundamentalists (like yourself) have gone beyond grasping at straws in making their case and have fallen into the realm of cognitive dissonance. Enjoy your bitter little fantasy world--the one where the "select few" have the "keys of knowledge" or some other such drivel. Those of us living in the real world will simply let the movie make its own case.
Please, Archer is pretty obscure to the general public as well. I mention the name Jonathan Archer to non-Trek fans they're like "who's that?" I answer "Scott Bakula's character on Star Trek." Then they go "who's Scott Bakula?" "The guy from Quantum Leap," I answer and finally they know who I'm talking about.
Hell, these people aren't into sci-fi at all, and more of them recognize the name Face of Boe as being a Doctor Who character than they recognize Jonathan Archer as a Star Trek character.
Hell, these people aren't into sci-fi at all, and more of them recognize the name Face of Boe as being a Doctor Who character than they recognize Jonathan Archer as a Star Trek character.
Wow you really like going in circles. So then it didn't matter who they used. And maybe just maybe.... Since Archer is "OFFICAL" Canon and not "Disputed" Canon the writers went with him for that reason...
Or maybe it's a totally different Admiral Archer.
Maybe they could have decided to finally end April's status as "disputed" by making him official canon. But they didn't, because that would mean respecting the true fans who bust their ass of to know their Trek. We've sacrificed interaction with women, hell we've sacrificed sex to know the name Robert April. Would it hurt Abrams and cohorts to respect us a little and canonize April?
Archer may be an obscure reference for the general public, but a helluva lot more people would have heard of the lead captain in a TV show that ended fairly recently than a captain referenced once in a cartoon shown i the '70s.
Holy hell. I would love to hope your just kidding and being sarcastic now. There really is no argument against that, though it truly makes me want to cry that some one is actually using that as a way to support their position.
Um I know the name Robert April. I know that James Doohan voiced him on TAS, I also didn't sacrifice sex with women because that's NOT what captain Kirk would do....
And now that you've used the True Fan card we can easily dismiss you, People who say they are True fans are the worst type of fan you can have because instead of turning that fandom into a social community they turn it into a "Members Only" Club. Art is there for everybody, Trek was and is Art. The art of story telling and it is Modern legend. While some things remain in the legend embelishment and change happen as the story gets passed from generation to generation.
Like Little Red Ridinghood.. What was the original ending to that fairytail?
Why would anyone want to validate or encourage that kind of behaviour? If that's your best justification, I'm afraid you're out of luck.
Poor mutt.
That this movie appears to eliminate Robert April as a functional captain of the Enterprise (I mean, it's still possible that he may turn out to be the parking attendant at the stardock or something) from canon has at this point become a delightful little bit of icing on the cake.
Folks, even the Catholic Church decanonized some saints a couple of decades back. It happens.
Folks, even the Catholic Church decanonized some saints a couple of decades back. It happens.
I don't think this one's about you.
You make being a fan sound like a job. A job in a monestary.
What the hell? Fandom is not a fulltime job, it is at best an amusing diversion from the Real World.
It becomes less amusing when the pinheads in charge decide to treat the established history of the franchise like a giant Etch-A-Sketch and the fans like Kleenex.
That last sentence, along with a few other things you've posted this week, suggest to me that you're a rather subtle satirist that lots of us just don't "get" sometimes.
However, in the context of taking seriously for a moment the "respecting the true fans who bust their ass to know their Trek" line, I gotta say - who cares? Life is too short.