Archer In Trek 08?

[scotthm]

HunterB5446 said:
all joking aside I loved Enterprise except for TATVS.

That was the best episode. (But only because it was the last.)

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

 

[datas_cat_spot]

Maybe a scene with Kirk in his dorm room throwing darts at Archer's face on a big poster on the wall.

 

[T'Cal]

How about Cadet Kirk answering a question from his history professor at the academy? Perhaps the question concerns one of Archer's missions and, what with him being Jim's boyhood hero, Jim responds with exhuberence causing others including Finnegan to taunt him.

 

[Holytomato]

:Fade In:

Archer appears in trash bag.

He speaks.

"I'm not CANON tm."

Purists lunge at him, and stab him repeatedly.

"Eh, tu Brutus?"

Then they set him on fire.

"Yes You Are!"

 

[Opus]

Photoman15 said:
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.

Blind loyalty is never a good thing.

Seeing a movie because it means more to the "Big Picture" than the actual individual's enjoyment is never a good thing.

Berating someone for not falling in step with what the "crowd" views as "good" makes one look like a goose-stepping... well, you get the idea...

 

[Arlo]

^ "Browncoat"?

 

[blockaderunner]

137th Gebirg said:
Had anyone heard if there will be any reference to Robert April, or is he completely de-canonized a-la TAS?

Mainstream Audience: "Who?"

And I'm sure they'll ask the same thing about Pike, Gary Seven, Gary Mitchell, and any other bit of fanwank which would bog down what I imagine will be a lean, taut drama devoid of any useless trivia.

 

[blockaderunner]

USS Excelsior said:
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.

By that time he could finally look like Morgan Freeman's character in Driving Miss Daisy since that what he was essentially, sans Freeman's character's personality.

 

[igrokbok]

..its an alternate timeline. Archer or any reference to Enterprise, the series, needn't be referenced at all.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I wouldn't mind it if Trek XI took its cues from TOS and DS9 and more or less forgot about TNG-VOY-ENT, in terms of theme and storytelling style more than character cameos.

Not that I even own TOS or DS9 DVDs...but that's just me being a cheapskate...

 

[Sharr Khan]

igrokbok said:
..its an alternate timeline. Archer or any reference to Enterprise, the series, needn't be referenced at all.

Says who?

Sharr

 

[Photoman15]

OphaClyde said:

Photoman15 said:
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.

Blind loyalty is never a good thing.

Seeing a movie because it means more to the "Big Picture" than the actual individual's enjoyment is never a good thing.

Berating someone for not falling in step with what the "crowd" views as "good" makes one look like a goose-stepping... well, you get the idea...

I'm not looking for blind loyalty, but I feel it's a ridiculous concept to not go see a movie (and I will make the assumption he has no problem with TNG) ONLY because of a 47 second scene with a character who he doesn't like. Her scene doesn't make the movie, it's superfloureous, just there to tie all the Trek universe together. He said that was the only reason he didn't go to see it the theater.

 

[Balrog]

Photoman15 said:

OphaClyde said:

Photoman15 said:
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.

Blind loyalty is never a good thing.

Seeing a movie because it means more to the "Big Picture" than the actual individual's enjoyment is never a good thing.

Berating someone for not falling in step with what the "crowd" views as "good" makes one look like a goose-stepping... well, you get the idea...

I'm not looking for blind loyalty, but I feel it's a ridiculous concept to not go see a movie (and I will make the assumption he has no problem with TNG) ONLY because of a 47 second scene with a character who he doesn't like. Her scene doesn't make the movie, it's superfloureous, just there to tie all the Trek universe together. He said that was the only reason he didn't go to see it the theater.

I have to agree with 'Clyde here. It's his time. It's his money. It's his right to decide how and why he's going to spend it. No one's holding a phaser to his head, although it seems some fans here would've liked to.

I was just as ticked about the decisions Berman and co. made re: NEM, including the Adm. Janeway cameo. I also didn't go. I'm glad because I think my decision, as well as the poster who decided not to go because of Janeway's appearance, helped save Star Trek from languishing in the mediocre hands of corporate hacks like Berman and his ilk. Why should I waste my money on something I don't personally believe in anymore?

So, you can say the reason we have this new, fresh Abrams' produced movie to look forward to is BECAUSE some fans DIDN'T blindly go to NEM out of some dislocated devotion to a entertainment franchise that had waned in its quality.

 

[ancient]

blockaderunner said:

137th Gebirg said:
Had anyone heard if there will be any reference to Robert April, or is he completely de-canonized a-la TAS?

Mainstream Audience: "Who?"

And I'm sure they'll ask the same thing about Pike, Gary Seven, Gary Mitchell, and any other bit of fanwank which would bog down what I imagine will be a lean, taut drama devoid of any useless trivia.

Characters don't necessarily bog down a story just because they've guested once before. Mitchell would seem the perfect 'buddy' character, even if he only appears with a younger Kirk. We know that Kirk's brother is in the movie, for example.

 

[scotthm]

Photoman15 said:
I feel it's a ridiculous concept to not go see a movie... ONLY because of a 47 second scene with a character who he doesn't like.

And I find it ridiculous that you're worrying yourself about it.

The Voyager producers' decision to promote Janeway to Admiral pissed me off enough, but then to put her in their new movie just was the last straw.

But it's really nothing for you to be concerned with. Take a deep breath and relax.

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

 

[Holytomato]

blockaderunner said:

137th Gebirg said:
Had anyone heard if there will be any reference to Robert April, or is he completely de-canonized a-la TAS?

TAS isn't de-canonized. :grin:

Mainstream Audience: "Who?"

And I'm sure they'll ask the same thing about Pike, Gary Seven, Gary Mitchell, and any other bit of fanwank which would bog down what I imagine will be a lean, taut drama devoid of any useless trivia.

[/QUOTE]

Calling something Fanwank tm is Fanwank tm. :grin:

Let's not have Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scott, Uhura, Chekov, The Enterprise, phasers, deflector shields, photon torpedies, Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, Tribbles, United Federation of Planets, Earth, or characterizations.

Viola! No lean taut drama.

Let's have Mindless Kewl Explosions tm. That's what Modern Day Movie Audiences Want tm.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

You have to keep the Enterprise...

 

[Holytomato]

She's useless trivia.

Same with the title, "Star Trek".

It worked for ENT.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

scotthm said:
The Voyager producers' decision to promote Janeway to Admiral

It was the writers of Nemesis who did that. FWIW.

pissed me off enough, but then to put her in their new movie just was the last straw.

It was originally supposed to be a cameo by Seven of Nine, not Janeway. Also FWIW.

 

[indranee]

Samurai8472 said:
Archer will be remembered on all of the 23rd century toilets with "John"

(sorry, but I had to laugh at this one)