Archer In Trek 08?

[Jack Bauer]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone mentioned "Archer Hall" at Starfleet Academy or we see Archer's portrait hanging with a bunch of other starship captains portraits at the Academy. Most people would've have no idea it refers to a character from one of the spin offs.

 

[martin]

Why Wouldn't Archer be there to see of the next Enterprise?

 

[scotthm]

Sharr Khan said:
That seems a little excessive... letting one cameo keep you out of a theater

I kept myself out of the theater because of the offensive inclusion. An insistence on putting silly, stupid stuff in this movie may have a similar effect.

Putting Jonathan Archer into this movie won't increase the boxoffice, but it may reduce it by at least a couple of tickets.

---------------

 

[scotthm]

Son_of_Soong said:
I love the way people exagerate everything in here... Oh no... I cant go see that movie now... theres 0.047 seconds of footage I disagree with!!!!

When I finally got around to seeing it, I found that there were many, many minutes of Nemesis to dislike, I just decided not to reward the ignorant inclusion of Admiral Janeway by buying a movie ticket. Nothing exaggerated, and not really your problem.

---------------

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

martin said:
Why Wouldn't Archer be there to see of the next Enterprise?

According to ENT, he WAS there at the launch oc the NCC-1701. However, this movie may not show that launch. The trailer shows its construction, but that trailer scenes may not be part of the movie itself; the movie could take place several years after its launch.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You could multiply that "one lost ticket sale" by the number of people who might do similarly, and not get anywhere near one million dollars. So it's no big deal.

Of course, box office is a declining percentage of the total sales for films thes days and studios plan for that - that's doubly true for "Star Trek." So paying to see a movie at any point in the distribution chain is the same as buying a ticket.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I kept myself out of the theater because of the offensive inclusion.

Like I said, massive over reaction. Janeways presence was hardly the worst bit about the film and lasted a fraction of a second. Stuff like this really makes us all look bad. You might think its some high standard or something but I can assure you its not it comes across as highly immature.

Really if you needed an excuse to not see it in a theater at least say you stayed away because you heard it sucked or something. But please don't use Janeway as an out or any other meaningless cameo. I doubt you protested TNG because McCoy made a brief appearances in the pilot and that was just as "cute" actually it was sacherine.

Hey I'm not arguing for Archer being in it (I doubt he is...) but if I heard he was it wouldn't bug me in the least. Nor would I be adversely harmed if Riker was escorting Spock someplace - but I also doubt he is... so this whole discussion is rather academic.

Sharr

 

[scotthm]

Sharr Khan said:

I kept myself out of the theater because of the offensive inclusion.

Like I said, massive over reaction.

After seeing Nemesis a couple of years later, I think not.

Janeways presence was hardly the worst bit about the film and lasted a fraction of a second.

Ah, but it was a bad part I knew about ahead of time.

Stuff like this really makes us all look bad.

I disagree. I think salivating over the inclusion of tribbles, Archer, etc. in this film makes Trekkies look bad. At least it would if 'normal' people hung out around here and read threads like this one.

---------------

 

[Photoman15]

scotthm said:

Son_of_Soong said:
I love the way people exagerate everything in here... Oh no... I cant go see that movie now... theres 0.047 seconds of footage I disagree with!!!!

When I finally got around to seeing it, I found that there were many, many minutes of Nemesis to dislike, I just decided not to reward the ignorant inclusion of Admiral Janeway by buying a movie ticket. Nothing exaggerated, and not really your problem.

---------------

Yeah, it is our problem. If 47 seconds is going to keep one person out of a theater, multiply that by every person here that is already complaining about a movie they know nothing about. It's thinking like that that will kill STAR TREK, not Berman, Braga or J.J.

When your nose runs, do you cut that off too?

 

[scotthm]

Photoman15 said:
Yeah, it is our problem. If 47 seconds is going to keep one person out of a theater, multiply that by every person here

I don't think I'm representative of "every person here", thank you.

When your nose runs, do you cut that off too?

I need my nose a lot more than I need to pay money to watch a bad Star Trek movie. In fact, I don't need to watch bad Star Trek movies at all.

Mind you, I'm not saying this new movie will be bad, but if the producers and director give in to every request made in this thread it'll be DOA.

---------------

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I can almost see where scotthm is coming from, but I don't necessairy agree. I think what he is saying is that Janeway's inclusion to him was a symptom of a larger problem. Her being in the film was just another hint that Berman just doesn't get it, and the over-concern with trying to fit fanwankery into Nemesis was illustrated -- but not caused -- by the unnecessary presence of Janeway.

Putting the character Archer in this film (more than his name on a console or his picture on a wall) could also be a symptom of fanwankery, and that inclusion may hint at the fact that this, too, will be a bad film.

I agree with the sentiment, but the inclusion of Archer as a character BY ITSELF will NOT make me stay home. I'll probably still see it even if a 100 year old looking Bakula is in this. I don't see Abrams as the fanwank sort, so I would probably forgive Archer's inclusion.

 

[Jon1701]

Needs to be something really subtle. Something you'd only notice after the fact.

I dunno, the Archer building at Starfleet Academy or something.

 

[God Magnus]

I'm not familiar with the interview where he states that "Enterprise" will be acknowledged so my question is: couldn't he mean that the show will be acknowledged in some other way like a passing reference to the NX?.

As for Archer himself, I don't think it will be a cameo (based on no real info really) since it would involve having Bakula on set for a day, costuming etc. etc. Not sure if they'd bother with all that for a thirty second shot.

Now Porthos on the other hand would be awesomeness.

 

[Noname Given]

martin said:
Why Wouldn't Archer be there to see of the next Enterprise?

because if it's say, 2255 or so, he'd be 130+ years old. Yes, I know it's the future, but 130 for a human - I don't think so.

 

[Jon1701]

McCoy was "137 according to Starfleet records" in Encounter at Farpoint.

 

[scotthm]

Jackson_Roykirk said:
I agree with the sentiment, but the inclusion of Archer as a character BY ITSELF will NOT make me stay home.

No, it wouldn't me either, but the more Abrams caters to the fans to include a million subtle nods to everything that's ever been in Trek, the more likely this movie will be a stinker. I'm not expecting this, but obviously many in this thread seem to think that's what we should get.

Admiral Janeway, on the other hand, is just offensive as a concept, and you're right, it is indicitive of Berman's cluelessness.

God Magnus said:
Now Porthos on the other hand would be awesomeness.

I hope you're kidding, because this is exactly the thing I'm talking about.

---------------

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

God Magnus said:
I'm not familiar with the interview where he states that "Enterprise" will be acknowledged so my question is: couldn't he mean that the show will be acknowledged in some other way like a passing reference to the NX?.

I would expect something like that to be the case.

 

[Solkar]

Son_of_Soong said:

CommanderRaytas said:
Showing Archer would not help this movie become a success.

How about the death of Archer then :-P

Fired from a photon tube then blasted with phasers, maybe?

 

[seigezunt]

who?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

seigezunt said:
who?

You know, Kirk's childhood hero.