I removed my original post.
Last edited:
Admiral Archer?
- Thread starter Gil T.Azell
- Start date
Have you read any of the novels in which TOS characters (Uhura, Sulu, McCoy, Chekov) are still actively serving in the later TNG period (late 2370s)?
From here (May 22 Q&A):Can't find the article link right now...but the film's writers indicated in a recent interview that the "Admirial Archer" mentioned onscreen is in fact the same character from Enterprise. However, they did state that the beagle in Star Trek 09 would be a different beagle than Porthos.
There's nothing about Porthos in this one, but even a spectacular increase in beagle life expectancy wouldn't be enough to explain it being anything but a different beagle which failed to rematerialize at the end of Scotty's experimental procedure.
Thanks for posting the link to this article!
As someone who reads this board a lot, yet posts infrequently, I hope you don't mind a couple of observations.
With regard to objections over Admiral Archer's age, you must remember to take into account the invigorating effects of water polo.
And regarding the age and identity of the beagle in question, I believe it to be the original Porthos. For those of a differing opinion, I can only say this: Behold, the power of cheese...
--Mike
With regard to objections over Admiral Archer's age, you must remember to take into account the invigorating effects of water polo.
And regarding the age and identity of the beagle in question, I believe it to be the original Porthos. For those of a differing opinion, I can only say this: Behold, the power of cheese...
--Mike
That's an interesting notion, but I'm afraid that there's a problem with it: We've already seen Starfleet officers interact with the three Federation Presidents (Hiram Roth in Star Trek IV, Ra-ghoratreii in Star Trek VI, and Jaresh-Inyo in DS9: "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost"), and in each appearance, they were addressed as "Mister President" rather than "Admiral." "Paradise Lost" contains a scene where the Federation President is referred to as the commander-in-chief of Starfleet, but that's it; there's nothing establishing the Federation President to hold an actual officer rank. As near as we can tell, the Federation President is like the U.S. President: A civilian commander-in-chief.
Do you post here often? Four posts in a row is spamming -- in addition to off-topic ad hominem commments.
Yeah, we all know Orci's a fan; and we know from Q&A's they left a number of things purposely vague. All the other TOS crew you cite are younger than McCoy. If Orci is aware of how old Jon would have to be, then he's leaving out how he got that way.
Last edited:
This sounds like an opportune place to point out to KingstonTrekker the Multi-Quote button [
Also, KingstonTrekker, if you've just posted something and a minute later think of something else you wanted to say, use the 'Edit' button to add to your already-existing post instead of making a new post. In the case of the second of your posts quoted above, however, not posting it at all would have been a far better choice, as it added nothing to the discussion and is, as pointed out, off-topic and intended as nothing more than a slap at other TrekBBS posters, rather than addressing what they've said. Don't do this again, please.
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet but in the original timeline Archer's dossier on the Defiant in "In A Mirror, Darkly" indicated that he lived long enough to see the launch of the Enterprise in 2245. Now this being an alternate universe its possible that the alternate Archer lived longer since the Enterprise launches in 2255 or whatever. We don't know how long Scotty was exiled on Delta Vega for though either, I think the line is ever since he transported Admiral Archer's dog. I thought the dog would be really really old too if it was the original Porthos but maybe he got successor dogs and just named them Porthos too.
Who's to say that Archer and Porthos didn't get into some wacky temporal adventure at some point in time?
Several of us have said he could have.
The idea that the dog is not the original Porthos is blasphemy. Hopefully we will see Porthos as a major guest star in the next movie.
It was not included in the summary but he did answer it in the original Q&A session. Post 866 here:
It was not included in the summary but he did answer it in the original Q&A session. Post 866 here:
This sounds like an opportune place to point out to KingstonTrekker the Multi-Quote button []. Click this on each post to which you wish to reply, then click 'Post Reply' and all of your responses will be contained within a single post, eliminating the triple- or quadruple-post problem, which may indeed be considered spamming and can be warnable as such.
Also, KingstonTrekker, if you've just posted something and a minute later think of something else you wanted to say, use the 'Edit' button to add to your already-existing post instead of making a new post. In the case of the second of your posts quoted above, however, not posting it at all would have been a far better choice, as it added nothing to the discussion and is, as pointed out, off-topic and intended as nothing more than a slap at other TrekBBS posters, rather than addressing what they've said. Don't do this again, please.
Thank you for this clarification. My intention was not to spam -- I was replying to separate posts. I was not "thinking of something a minute later" and posting a new idea. I will use the multi-quote feature in the future -- I do appreciate this tip.
Re: your last point -- warning taken. You are correct -- in hindsight, I agree that I should not have posted this private thought. I was just finding some of the comments in this thread to be a bit inane, but I should have kept the reflection/thought to myself. I am sorry to anyone I offended.
However, I also hope that the original poster received the same warning (since he/she was also off-topic) and that similiar warnings are given for the similar comments that are made on here regularly.
Thanks again for the tips.
If this is aimed at me, I wasn't making a personal comment to you. I thought you might not know the rules.
Wasn't aimed at you at all Jeri -- in fact I also appreciated your tips since I was, in fact, unaware of the rules!
I was referring to the original poster:
But Trek fans being...well Trek fans they just ignore the obvious and the facts and go on wild geese chases.
It was this post that I replied to with my inappropriate reflection.
Similar threads
