@BrannonBraga said:For those wondering, Archer as Future Guy was always the idea.Trying to repair a corrupt future by influencing his innocent past self.
Go home Brannon Braga, you're drunk.

@BrannonBraga said:For those wondering, Archer as Future Guy was always the idea.Trying to repair a corrupt future by influencing his innocent past self.
Go home Brannon Braga, you're drunk.
Braga was there and in charge; none of us were either of those. Why would I argue with what he claims he intended?
That sounds mostly in line with what Braga has said over the years. The original idea for Season One (or at least part of it) was to have it set primarily on Earth, with Archer putting his crew together while the NX-01 is under construction.It seems Brannon Braga has been saying quite a lot of stuff lately. I just saw a recent youtube video where he said the original idea for Enterprise was a multi-season long story-arc with season 1 primarily be an Earth-bound series. It starts almost identically as we've seen in Broken Bow, but most of the season 1 was going to be about the rush to get the NX-01 built in order to handle Suliban threat and season 1 was going to end with the launching of Enterprise. Apparently, TPTB insisted on using the old TOS/TNG/VOY episodic "starship encounters alien of the week" formula so Braga was forced to launch the Enterprise in Broken Bow.
That sounds mostly in line with what Braga has said over the years. The original idea for Season One (or at least part of it) was to have it set primarily on Earth, with Archer putting his crew together while the NX-01 is under construction.
Braga was there and in charge; none of us were either of those. Why would I argue with what he claims he intended?
because people don't always tell the truth?
People who live on third-hand information sometimes seem so desperate to have all the pieces fit together in a way that makes sense to them - or, even more unrealistically, in a way that makes satisfying sense to them.
That doesn't mean anything.
Again, he knows what he's talking about, from memory and experience, and no one here does. All you have is "I heard something else once that contradicts this" - perhaps from Braga himself in a different situation - or "that doesn't make sense with what I get out of watching the show."
And again, that doesn't mean anything. They might have intended many things different than what was produced. But sure, if it doesn't sound right to you just assume that the person who knows is a liar.
Braga was there and in charge; none of us were either of those. Why would I argue with what he claims he intended?
because people don't always tell the truth?
Wow. I did not know that.
And it doesn't begin to answer my question.
People who live on third-hand information sometimes seem so desperate to have all the pieces fit together in a way that makes sense to them - or, even more unrealistically, in a way that makes satisfying sense to them.
That doesn't mean anything.
Again, he knows what he's talking about, from memory and experience, and no one here does. All you have is "I heard something else once that contradicts this" - perhaps from Braga himself in a different situation - or "that doesn't make sense with what I get out of watching the show."
And again, that doesn't mean anything. They might have intended many things different than what was produced. But sure, if it doesn't sound right to you just assume that the person who knows is a liar.
BTW, the "spend a season building the Enterprise" is not a new piece of information; either Braga or Berman has spoken of that more than once.
If the people who created something say that they had a certain intention, you have no basis on which to challenge that.
None at all.
You can only argue about whether they effectively acted on their intention, which is quite a different thing.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.