Archer In Trek 08?

[USS Excelsior]

The reference to Enterprise could be to just have an ancient Travis Mayweather make an appearance, if Archer would be considered too old.

He could be the special guest who takes the ship underway for the first time.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Or, it could just be some visual or textual reference to NX-01. That's what I expect, if anything.

 

[ST-One]

Jackson_Roykirk said:
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.

If Mr. Abrams does it right he can wank this fan

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Starship Polaris said:

seigezunt said:
who?

You know, Kirk's childhood hero.

Abrams MUST include a scene in which 8 year old Jimmy Kirk is running through his Iowa backyard pretending his model of the NX-01 is flying, with Jimmy making phaser...err...phase canon noises. Of course in his other hand will be his Mego(tm) Jonathan Archer action figure.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

MisterPL said:
Is Archer part of this movie's continuity?

It's all the same continuity.

 

[God Magnus]

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

Wow dude, you need to chill a bit. I mean, first off the lil' guy should be long gone by then and I included a smiley for a reason. I mean really, I didn't expect anyone to take that seriously.

 

[scotthm]

God Magnus said:

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

Wow dude, you need to chill a bit. I mean, first off the lil' guy should be long gone by then and I included a smiley for a reason. I mean really, I didn't expect anyone to take that seriously.

I did say I hope you're kidding.

Don't worry too much about me, there's nothing so far in this thread I've been able to take seriously.

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

 

[johnconner]

Where I come from, smileys are serious business.

Hell, just name a like dog Aramis, put it in Archer's aged lap, and call it a day.

 

[Balrog]

Photoman15 said:

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?

I don't get this.

If someone doesn't want to see a movie, for whatever reason, then it's their choice. How can a CHOICE be wrong?

Sometimes I think fans believe we have an obligation to see anything with a Trek label on it despite any kind of consideration to quality or personal appeal.

Personally, this is why I think ultimately Berman's Trek failed both on the screen and on TV. Berman and co. simply ASSUMED their Trek audience attendance and went about making a movie or show that really didn't appeal to them. They wanted a NEW viewers to suppliment the older fan base. And they forgot that the word "fan" is synonymous with the word "consumer". And when the product no longer connects with your consumer base, you lose.

Now, is Abrams and co. making the same mistake? I don't know. IMO so far rumors have been a little hit and miss. Perhaps they are more hit for some, more miss for others. Some have already seen enough so far and have decided not to go. And that's their right. I'm still on the fence (I didn't see NEM in the theatre as a personal protest myself). I'll make my own call as we get closer to the release date.

But if this movie fails, then it's because it didn't connect enough with the consumer base, and not because the fans were somehow disloyal Star Trek nose-cutters.

I guess I am always of the adage that the customer is ALWAYS right.

 

[Photoman15]

His choice not to see a movie is his to make, of course. But if you're a Trek fan and you refuse to go see the movie because Kate Mulgrew has a scene that's less than a minute, on a view screen, no less, that's 1, some convoluted logic and 2, hurts Trek in the long run. IF that was his only reason, or if he just knew it sucked and is just using that as an excuse. If that's all that's stopping you, go pee when she comes on screen.

 

[Holytomato]

"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."

The movie will show the launch, and the movie is set several years after the launch.

 

[scotthm]

Photoman15 said:
But if you're a Trek fan and you refuse to go see the movie because Kate Mulgrew has a scene that's less than a minute, on a view screen, no less, that's
`
1, some convoluted logic

Untrue. The fact is, I wasn't interested in paying to watch such a scene. Very logical, then, to not pay to see it.

and 2, hurts Trek in the long run.

Trek was not hurt by me and my wife missing Nemesis in the theaters. It can be argued that Nemesis was hurt by including Admiral Janeway in the mix, but there ended up being lots of other problems too.

IF that was his only reason, or if he just knew it sucked and is just using that as an excuse.

I don't believe there's any call for you to doubt my word on this matter. I do know why I skipped Nemesis during its theatrical run.

As to this thread's topic, I wouldn't miss this movie just because Archer shows up, but I can't think of any reason Archer should make an appearance in this movie, and I, quite honestly, wouldn't mind placing some distance between TOS (TV) and most of the rest of Trek.

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

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Lloyd_Dobler said:
I guess I am always of the adage that the customer is ALWAYS right.

Having worked many years in retail and customer service, I can honestly say that not only is the customer NOT always right, sometimes the customer is an idiot.

 

[ST-One]

scotthm said:
... and I, quite honestly, wouldn't mind placing some distance between TOS (TV) and most of the rest of Trek.

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

Why?

 

[scotthm]

ST-One said:

scotthm said:
... and I, quite honestly, wouldn't mind placing some distance between TOS (TV) and most of the rest of Trek.

Why?

If I lost my Star Trek movie DVDs, and my TNG DVDs, and my Voyager DVDs, and my Enterprise DVDs (oh wait, I don't have any Enterprise DVDs), I wouldn't get in any rush to replace them. But if I lost my TOS DVDs (and even my DS9 DVDs), I'd want to get new ones pretty soon.

For me, if this new Star Trek movie got back to the roots of Trek, and cast off the baggage of everything not TOS, it would be fantastic. It doesn't have to look like 60's Trek, but it should feel like 60's Trek, but with better production values, better supporting actors (i.e. no Mr. Leslie), and bigger scale, but without sacrificing what made the characters work.

None of the subsequent Star Trek fare felt (to me) much like the original, though I do enjoy some of it.

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

 

[182]

scotthm said:

and I, quite honestly, wouldn't mind placing some distance between TOS (TV) and most of the rest of Trek.

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

Ahh, there it is.. I had been reading this thread wondering what the deal was, but here it is, only took 3 pages or so to finally get it.

 

[scotthm]

182 said:
only took 3 pages or so to finally get it.

What is it you think you got?

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

 

[Aragorn]

Lloyd_Dobler said:
I guess I am always of the adage that the customer is ALWAYS right.

Customer walks into a movie store asking to buy a movie that's never been on DVD and there's no indication that it'll be on DVD anytime soon. Clerk tells customer it's not on DVD. Customer gets pissed off, yells at him, calls him stupid and says he'll just get the movie someplace else. Is the customer right?

 

[Nowhere Man]

maybe the whole movie is about stopping Old Archer from giving young Archer the sports almanac all joking aside I loved Enterprise except for TATVS. I would love to see Archer at The Enterprise launch

 

[Son_of_Soong]

He will probably be touring the new Enterprise trying to find out where the damn squeeking is coming from.