Litverse & Star Trek '09

[Christopher]

The more Trek lead characters get to live impossibly long lives, the more inanely improbable it gets. We already have to put up with pretty much the entire TOS main cast still being alive in 24th-century novels, which is ridiculous from a statistical standpoint. So enough already.

 

[Damian]

The more Trek lead characters get to live impossibly long lives, the more inanely improbable it gets. We already have to put up with pretty much the entire TOS main cast still being alive in 24th-century novels, which is ridiculous from a statistical standpoint. So enough already.

I do agree. A lot of the novels have the characters living impossibly long. In Archer's case I just accepted it because it was noted in 2 canon sources, 'In A Mirror Darkly' and Star Trek (2009). And I just figured he was an exception.

McCoy, Scotty and Spock are the other cases I recall in canon. Of course Scotty doesn't really count since he was held in suspension for decades, and Spock is part Vulcan. In canon, that just leaves McCoy and Archer as the true exceptions (that's if you accept the unseen computer screen and Orci's intent for his Archer reference).

As for the others, well I'm an avid novel reader and try to accept what the authors have written wherever possible where it doesn't conflict with canon. But yes, I wish they hadn't included Uhura and Chekov in those 24th century novels. I enjoyed the Lost Era novels and the Vulcan's Soul novels but I too wish other characters were used.

 

[MadeIndescribable]

The more Trek lead characters get to live impossibly long lives, the more inanely improbable it gets.

Having thought about it some more, I don't really see it as impossible, or improbable. Given that life expectancies generally do increase with each successive generation, and the amount of people that do live past 100 even today, I don't really find it that surprising that if humanity can travel at faster than the speed of light then surely by the 2200s we'll have found/discovered/invented medical technology that is equally as advanced/ridiculous. (To say nothing of alien discoveries, co-operation such as the Interspecies Medical Exchange, etc)

The things I find inanley improbable is the amount of times that out of all of Starfleet, it often falls to just one crew to save an entire planet/the federation/the entire universe...

 

[Leto_II]

Hell, even Gene Roddenberry himself felt that overly-extended lifespans in the Trek universe weren't realistically viable on a mass scale -- in the first edition of the Okudachron (IIRC), it's mentioned that Gene felt that James T. Kirk had "probably died" (or words to that effect) during the intervening eight decades between TOS and TNG. Of course, that edition was published just a year or two before Star Trek: Generations was produced and changed all of that.

 

[Damian]

Perhaps. But I would think there's an upper limit to how long a human can live before their body just succumbs. It's also possible that the Enterprise (from the original series--or maybe the 1701-A) ran into something that caused them to live longer than normal lives. There are probably numerous ways for someone to explain it. That doesn't explain Archer of course, but it doesn't preclude the possibility. Perhaps someday an author, comic book writer, or even screenplay writer will decide to tackle that question.

 

[Christopher]

I do agree. A lot of the novels have the characters living impossibly long. In Archer's case I just accepted it because it was noted in 2 canon sources, 'In A Mirror Darkly' and Star Trek (2009).

Except it wasn't. The bio screen showing Archer's date of death was written for IaMD but never actually shown onscreen, so it isn't canon. And ST '09 only says "Admiral Archer," never giving a first name.

Having thought about it some more, I don't really see it as impossible, or improbable. Given that life expectancies generally do increase with each successive generation, and the amount of people that do live past 100 even today, I don't really find it that surprising that if humanity can travel at faster than the speed of light then surely by the 2200s we'll have found/discovered/invented medical technology that is equally as advanced/ridiculous. (To say nothing of alien discoveries, co-operation such as the Interspecies Medical Exchange, etc)

In general, of course, I agree with you. Lots of science fiction, including my own original writing (e.g. my story "Twilight's Captives," whose heroine is physiologically in her late 170s and still in robust health), posits a great extension of human longevity in future centuries. But Star Trek has not. That's the point. The in-universe evidence shows that human longevity in the 23rd century is no better than it is today (in fact, "The Deadly Years" treats upper 60s as elderly, which seems quaint by today's standards), and that in the 24th century it's only incrementally better (Picard is only about 10 years older than Patrick Stewart, and 137-140 is treated as extreme and impressive old age). So it's implausible that someone from the 22nd century had a lifespan that would be considered exceptional in the 24th. It just doesn't fit the canonical evidence.

 

[MadeIndescribable]

It just doesn't fit the canonical evidence.

Fair enough, didn't realise the "aging" episodes weren't quite as aged....

 

[Damian]

Ok. Point taken. I accepted it because of the bio info + Bob Orci saying they were referencing the same Jonathan Archer in their movie. Sure, someone can take issue with that. But when the writer of a movie says he meant for Admiral Archer to be Jonathan Archer I accept it. It's not officially canon, but I have no reason to assume otherwise at this point. I agree it's probably not the norm, but perhaps Archer is simply an exception--or maybe something happened to him to cause him to age more slowly--or maybe he had some sort of accident like Scotty and was held in suspension, travelled through time accidently. There may very well be a plausible reason for him being alive until 2245[/QUOTE]

 

[Christopher]

But when the writer of a movie says he meant for Admiral Archer to be Jonathan Archer I accept it.

Star Trek is not the creation of any one writer. Even Gene Roddenberry had intentions that we usually reject today -- like his evident intention in "Turnabout Intruder" that there were no female human starship captains, and his documented intention that Vulcan males had a hypnotic sexual power over women. Maurice Hurley intended the Borg to be interested only in technology and not individuals, but his successors retconned them into space zombies whose primary goal was to assimilate people. Michael Piller intended the Bajoran wormhole inhabitants to be extratemporal aliens who'd had no knowledge of humanoid life until they met Sisko, but his successors retconned them into literal gods who'd engineered Sisko's birth. No single writer's intentions have absolute authority in Star Trek, because Star Trek is a collective creation. The collective evidence in Trek canon as a whole tells us that life expectancy in the future is not significantly improved over the present, and that collective information outweighs one writer's extratextual whim.

 

[thribs]

The Bible was the worst in that; saying that characters like Noah lived to be 900 years old. Now that’s just excessive.

 

[Damian]

Star Trek is not the creation of any one writer. Even Gene Roddenberry had intentions that we usually reject today -- like his evident intention in "Turnabout Intruder" that there were no female human starship captains, and his documented intention that Vulcan males had a hypnotic sexual power over women. Maurice Hurley intended the Borg to be interested only in technology and not individuals, but his successors retconned them into space zombies whose primary goal was to assimilate people. Michael Piller intended the Bajoran wormhole inhabitants to be extratemporal aliens who'd had no knowledge of humanoid life until they met Sisko, but his successors retconned them into literal gods who'd engineered Sisko's birth. No single writer's intentions have absolute authority in Star Trek, because Star Trek is a collective creation. The collective evidence in Trek canon as a whole tells us that life expectancy in the future is not significantly improved over the present, and that collective information outweighs one writer's extratextual whim.

Sure. I don't see that happening though. Bob Orci said it was their intention that they were referencing Jonathan Archer in that line. I accept that because he wrote the line and that was what he intended it to be. Now if some future movie says on screen that it was his son for instance, intent or not, that would be canon. However, I doubt that would happen. First, it's really not all that important. Second, I imagine any future screenplay writer would probably respect their intent. Sometimes it makes sense to retcon (your Turnabout Intruder reference for example). But in this case, I don't see it as really important. The only issue this treads on is can a human being live as long as Archer into the 23rd century (as opposed to women not being allowed to be captains).

I treat novels the same way. Personally I accept them as the overall storyline of Star Trek, as long as they don't conflict with official canon. I think in a way you have to, to really enjoy what you are reading. Someone could come along and film the Romulan War and totally dismantle everything Michael Martin did in his novels also. I suppose that's the risk you all take when you write novels. However, like the Archer reference, I doubt it will happen. I always hope that screenwriters try to keep things like that in mind when writing screenplays if at all possible.

 

[thribs]

Turnabout Intruder could still work. She was clearly insane and could have got it wrong. Someone also could have said to her that females couldn’t be captains to annoy her.

 

[Christopher]

Sure. I don't see that happening though. Bob Orci said it was their intention that they were referencing Jonathan Archer in that line. I accept that because he wrote the line and that was what he intended it to be.

He said it was his intention. But it wasn't his movie. He was one member of a team, and a lot of his intentions were overridden by Abrams. And that one movie is just one of over 700 installments in the Trek franchise, made by hundreds of people with hundreds of different intentions. Any single intention must be weighed against what the rest of the franchise tells us to believe and expect about the Trek universe.

Now if some future movie says on screen that it was his son for instance, intent or not, that would be canon. However, I doubt that would happen. First, it's really not all that important.

So if it doesn't matter, why blow this up into such a huge argument? What is so horrible about me just saying it's more likely to be a descendant? Why must that simple observation be so vehemently protested every time I bring it up around here? Yes, I know what Orci intended blah blah blah. I just don't care. It doesn't matter, because it isn't binding on anyone -- not in the production, and certainly not in the audience.

I always hope that screenwriters try to keep things like that in mind when writing screenplays if at all possible.

Something this preposterously trivial? Something that was never even onscreen? Don't hold your breath.

 

[Damian]

Something this preposterously trivial? Something that was never even onscreen? Don't hold your breath.

I was referencing storylines in general, not any one thing. Though I recognize screenwriters have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to the novel writers, or anyone else.

I think you'll find I love a good debate (well, I guess whether it's a good debate is debatable too). I guess part of it is I always assumed it was Archer and never thought otherwise. Before yesterday I never gave it a second thought. I guess once I started, well then, you know.

 

[Damian]

Turnabout Intruder could still work. She was clearly insane and could have got it wrong. Someone also could have said to her that females couldn’t be captains to annoy her.

I seem to remember reading in one of the novels something to that effect. That she thought she was passed over because she was a woman, but there were actually other reasons for her being passed over but she convinced herself it was because she was a woman and Kirk couldn't convince her otherwise. Maybe someone else can point to the novel, I can't remember the details or where I remember reading that. Maybe Assignment: Eternity. I looked it up on Memory Beta and there is a note about Lester in that novel...it could be from somewhere else though. It's been a while since I read that novel.

 

[Christopher]

I think you'll find I love a good debate (well, I guess whether it's a good debate is debatable too). I guess part of it is I always assumed it was Archer and never thought otherwise. Before yesterday I never gave it a second thought. I guess once I started, well then, you know.

The most important things for us to argue against are our own assumptions.

 

[Damian]

The most important things for us to argue against are our own assumptions.

I'll admit when I first heard the line I thought, wow, Archer must be pretty old. But then I remembered the "In a Mirror Darkly" missing screen about him dying in 2245 and of course Orci's later comment. After that I just never gave it much thought.

So I guess you can say I did give it a brief thought before accepting it. I didn't accept it blindly, but found it made sense for me for those two reasons then moved on, at least until now. And then during this discussion I tried to think of ways Archer could potentially be alive until 2245. Granted it's all conjecture. But one thing I learned in Star Trek there can be a hundred reasons to explain it, from a mutation to time travel, to everything in between.

But it was something that initially I didn't give a second thought too until someone else brought it up. It's not an earth shattering element in the Star Trek universe, but was something that peaked my interest for a time once I started thinking about it more in detail.

 

[Christopher]

Granted it's all conjecture. But one thing I learned in Star Trek there can be a hundred reasons to explain it, from a mutation to time travel, to everything in between.

Yes, as a single isolated incident, that could be possible, but the problem is that it keeps happening to people from the bridge crews of ships named Enterprise. They all either live incredibly long or are resurrected or suspended in time or turn out to have faked their deaths or whatever, and it beggars probability after a while.

Besides, Archer has enough historic accomplishments under his belt -- first Warp 5 captain, key figure in bringing the Federation into existence, a stint as the UFP president. Giving him record-setting longevity on top of all that is rather Mary Sue-ish.

 

[Damian]

That must be why everyone wants to serve on the Enterprise. Not because of it's fame, but because you live forever.

But in all seriousness, it's true it gets a bit much. I felt that way when Scotty appeared in TNG. Granted in his case he didn't really "live" to be over a 100 years old, just a technological fluke. McCoy, ok, one guy (and he's stubborn enough to just keep on living). Spock I accepted because he was half-Vulcan and it was already established they lived long lives. But now Scotty too. Then a couple novels portrayed Chekov and Uhura well past the century mark (I don't know, is Sulu still alive too, I don't remember anything specific about his life span).

Maybe it was just saturation. You know, what the Hell, everyone else is living to their 130s, what's one more.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

What about the spores McCoy was exposed to? Maybe they reset his cellular clock so that from that point on, his adult body's cells would be as young and fresh as that of a developing baby in the womb. Even babies get cancer, so xenopolycythemia after that incident isn't out of the realm of possibility; heck, his particular case of that disease might have been a side effect of the spores - his blood cells not getting the message that they can stop multiplying so fast. Multiple causes for xenopoly might explain why it's so hard to cure-you need a treatment that works regardless of the one (of many potential) root cause of any given case. Maybe the Fabrini cure then granted him further rejuvenation beyond that.