NEW ONGOING STAR TREK SERIES FROM IDW!!!

[Therin of Andor]

It was only later, in the TNG era when he'd bought into the myth of himself as a visionary philosopher, that he began to treat that military aspect as a bad thing.

A bit earlier than TNG, perhaps. By the time he was doing the lecture circuit of university campuses in the 70s, GR had already "come to regret" giving Franz Joseph enough creative license to suggest the existence of dreadnoughts in Starfleet, and the fact that the semi-licensed "Star Fleet Battles" was a "war game", not the gentler "role play game" concept that evolved later.

 

[Christopher]

I think that the main reason why people assume that Admiral Archer is Jonathan Archer is because they want him to be the same person.

And what wonderful, fulfilling lives those people must've had if they actually expect what they want to correspond to what actually is. In my experience, they're usually two very different things. For instance, when I try to make a simple point that there's more than one possible interpretation of an ambiguous piece of evidence, I want people to understand and accept that straightforward idea so I can make that simple point and move on. Instead, somehow, they always argue against it aggressively for no reason I can fathom, as if there were something wrong with even acknowledging the idea that there could be more than one Starfleet officer named Archer in the history of the universe, and it always ends up becoming a big controversy somehow.

 

[iarann]

But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military.

Which was BS, because it's obviously military in its forms and structure.

Hey, don't get mad at me, I didn't make that up.

Sure I do, I say that about lots of things in Star Trek.

So if you were on a jury and they showed you surveillance footage of the defendant robbing a bank, and the defense claim was that he was possessed by ghosts and made to do it against his will, would you say "why not?" and vote for acquittal? This is basic reasoning. In the absence of certain knowledge, the more likely interpretation is favored over the less likely one. That's what "likely" means!

What part of "lots of things in Star Trek" didn't you understand? My willing suspension of disbelief when watching a science fiction show far closer to fantasy than science is not going to fit how I would look at things on a jury in real life.

Here's the thing you seem to not understand, not all of us treat Star Trek as we would a religious text, trying to explain away inconsistencies and such. I understand it's your job and you wrote a couple of great novels doing so, but when I watch Star Trek I just assume continuity and science are going to be secondary concerns at best. If the next movie has a couple of 200 year old people just show up and no one thinks twice, I'm not going to sit and think "No way! In almost 50 years of Star Trek they have never inferred people live to be 200". Instead I'll just think "Eh, Star Trek" and keep watching.

I've already explained the difference between those two situations. The available evidence strongly supports it being McCoy. We have no actual canonical evidence that the admiral is Jonathan Archer instead of his daughter or grandson or something. It's simply a matter of following the evidence. If there were any real evidence that it was Jonathan rather than a different Archer, then I'd accept that, just as I accept that the guy who looks and talks and acts like McCoy is almost certainly McCoy. But since there is no conclusive evidence for that, and since it's so unlikely, I remain skeptical.

It's not strong evidence, but it is evidence. They made an in joke about Admiral Archer's beagle. The writers said that reference referred to the Jonathan Archer whose adventures were chronicled in Star Trek: Enterprise. Based on that evidence it was easy to come up with a basic workaround for how he could still be alive (146 is old then like 90 is old now) and why they called him Admiral (he decided he wants people to call him that). I'm not making crazy assumptions any more than the people that created the movie did. I'm sorry that bothers you, but if you don't like it you can stick with your hypothesis of Admiral Archer the Third, and others of us will stick with the Jonathan Archer theory. That movie was full of scientific holes, Jonathan Archer surviving to his 140s is the least of what I would think people would freak out about.

 

[Scout101]

Yeah, I never assumed Jonathan. Despite the writer wanting a cute nod, never really made sense. I put that down as grandson/daughter, or even great-grandson/daughter.

You wouldn't assume it's Jonathan any more than you'd assume the dog was Porthos. Like Christopher said, if your family always had one breed of dog, you're more likely to get one yourself, and so it goes. By the 'pro-Jonathan' camp, though, there's just as much evidence that it was Porthos, but don't see too many arguing that one. Works for one, but not the other? Same logic...

As for the Admiral vs President thing? Only thing I can put out against the argument is that while you'd refer to someone who'd done both as President, I guess there could be the argument that within a military group discussing the man, it may not be impossible to refer to him as Admiral. Especially if he went back to Starfleet after his Presidency, and further distinguished himself. Either could be appropriate in that case, and since the only evidence of it is from a group of military members discussing him...

Either way, I'm in the "not him" camp. Cute nod, but would have to be decendants of both Jonathan and Porthos to make sense...

 

[Christopher]

But as Gene Roddenberry loved to point out, Starfleet isn't military.

Which was BS, because it's obviously military in its forms and structure.

Hey, don't get mad at me, I didn't make that up.

I wasn't directing any hostility at you. Of course you were just passing along Roddenberry's own well-known stance, and it was that stance that I was responding to.

What part of "lots of things in Star Trek" didn't you understand? My willing suspension of disbelief when watching a science fiction show far closer to fantasy than science is not going to fit how I would look at things on a jury in real life.

Here's the thing you seem to not understand, not all of us treat Star Trek as we would a religious text, trying to explain away inconsistencies and such. I understand it's your job and you wrote a couple of great novels doing so, but when I watch Star Trek I just assume continuity and science are going to be secondary concerns at best.

It's not about "religious text." Although it doesn't always live up to the ideal, Star Trek was originally conceived with the goal of being a more credible, well-thought-out science-fiction universe than something like Lost in Space. On the whole, it's generally tried to make at least a modicum of sense and not throw basic logic or credibility out the window. When it does do so, I consider that an error or a shortfall rather than an excuse to treat the whole thing as a pile of random nonsense.

Besides, in any good fiction, even fantasy fiction, there's an expectation that it stay consistent with its own internal rules. It doesn't matter if those rules are crazy compared to the rules of our world; they should still be consistent within the world itself. That's just basic storytelling competence. So it's not "religious" fanaticism to expect Star Trek to live up to the same basic standards of competence one would expect of any work of fiction.

It's not strong evidence, but it is evidence. They made an in joke about Admiral Archer's beagle.

But that's not proof, which is my point. Especially since pet preferences are often handed down through the generations. Is it so impossible to admit simply that it could have been a descendant of Archer's? That's all I want -- for people to acknowledge that there's more than one possible interpretation of that throwaway line. I don't understand why I always get such fierce resistance to even admitting the possibility.

The writers said that reference referred to the Jonathan Archer whose adventures were chronicled in Star Trek: Enterprise.

Asked and answered, days ago. Writer intent is not canonical; and Mike Sussman's writer intent from IaMD is that Archer didn't live that long and would be called "President," not "Admiral." With two conflicting, equally non-canonical writer intents, it is arbitrary to hold one up as probative and completely ignore the other.

I'm sorry that bothers you, but if you don't like it you can stick with your hypothesis of Admiral Archer the Third, and others of us will stick with the Jonathan Archer theory.

*sigh* All I'm trying to do is point out that it's ambiguous, that there's not enough evidence to prove either hypothesis. Why can nobody understand that? Why is it so hard to understand that "I don't know" is a valid answer?

 

[Pauln6]

*sigh* All I'm trying to do is point out that it's ambiguous, that there's not enough evidence to prove either hypothesis. Why can nobody understand that? Why is it so hard to understand that "I don't know" is a valid answer?

Why you green-blooded, inhuman, son of a... Don't you understand how forums work? They're like Vaal. Without certainty they implode.

DEATH!!

BY SNOO SNOO!

 

[Stoek]

*sigh* All I'm trying to do is point out that it's ambiguous, that there's not enough evidence to prove either hypothesis. Why can nobody understand that? Why is it so hard to understand that "I don't know" is a valid answer?

In all fairness Christopher I'm not sure if you are aware of how "CERTAIN" you sometimes come across in some of the things you post.

While I was only partially kidding with my earlier post (I generally do tend to at least initially assume that any character referenced with a known name is that same character especially when first watching or reading something) after reading your subsequent posts I can see the logic behind the case you make for it being one of Archers descendants rather than the man himself. And I believe I largely understand the spirit in which you are posting which amounts to (Neither possibility is canonically established so why do people act like one is?). But you do have a way of phrasing yourself that I think sometimes gets misread by some as, (The possibility you prefer makes no sense and the one I prefer makes better sense so why don't you prefer the one I do.) and that is what they are reacting to.

It's not entirely fair but sadly that is still far too often the way of the internet.

The other thing I suspect some people don't think about is the fact that by inclination and habit (I'm suspecting) you are the sort of person who looks for exactly the kind of loopholes opened by the indeterminate "Archer" and then spins stories out of them. It is an amazing skill and personally one that I think anyone who wishes to write Trek fiction even at the fan level would do well to cultivate.

 

[Christopher]

^Okay, thanks for that. I appreciate it. I guess I do come on strong sometimes, but often my problem is that I'm arguing for ambiguity and uncertainty and, as you say, too many people on the Internet assume everyone is arguing for an absolute point of view. I often respond to "It's all white" with "No, it's a shade of gray" and am bewildered when the reply is "How can you say it's all black?" I naturally gravitate toward the middle ground while the people around me focus on the extremes. (I always try to live up to what my 11th-grade English teacher, Mr. Pierato, taught: "Moderation in everything, including moderation." I don't always succeed. As you point out, I can be rather opinionated about not having a firm opinion. I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!)

 

[RPJOB]

Christopher, I can't believe that you're using probability when discussing Star Trek. While exploring the galaxy how many times have we encountered friends, family members, etc.

In Court martial, not only is Ben Finney's daughter named after Kirk but she just happens to be on the Starbase that the Enterprise puts into after the "death" of her father. Then we find out that the prosecutor is a former girl friend of Kirk's was well.

The Man Trap has a planet with two people on it, one of whom is a former girlfriend of McCoy's.

Operation: Annihilate! just happens to take place on the home planet of Kirk's brother.

Journey to Babel just happens to be about Spock's father. What are the odds of that?

Let's not forget all the coincidences of TNG, DS9, Voy and Ent as well. For example, Trip's sister just happens to live along the path of the Xindii beam, despite the fact that it destroyed a minute percentage of the Earths surface.

Or how about ST09? Pike just happens to be at the same bar while Kirk is getting smacked around. The son of the hero that Pike wrote his paper on? And, despite being in a totally different univers, with people's lives being changed to the point that Chekov can't possibly be the same person despite having the same name, everyone ends up back on a ship with the same name as the prime universe? Kirk is even captain against all possible odds. Even the minor characters appear to be present going by McCoy's shout out to nurse Chapel.

Who's to say that Archer was even president in the NuUniverse? Perhaps the Federation voted for a more militant President in the aftermath of the Nero affair. Even if you want to insist that Archer did indeed become President there's nothing onscreen that would say exactly when that was. Or perhaps something happened to Archer in the prime universe that led to him dying the day after the Prime Enterprise was launched. If NuArcher avoided an accident or being sneezed on by a person with Denebian Influenza he might have lived a good 20 years longer than his prime counterpart.

Probabilities? Seriously? It's action/adventure fiction. The improbable becomes not only probable but likely.

It is Archer in the same way that it was McCoy in EaFP. Because the most likely explanation is that it was intended to be. They'd hardly stop the movie in it's tracks to give us enough proof that we'd know it was the same Archer from ENT. It was a throwaway line, a little shout out to the fans. If it wasn't supposed to be, why use that name and that breed of dog? And if it's not him, why should we care?

 

[PsychoPere]

Who's to say that Archer was even president in the NuUniverse? Perhaps the Federation voted for a more militant President in the aftermath of the Nero affair. [...]

The timeline wouldn't work out for the split to affect Archer.

If one accepts the idea that Archer became UFP President, then he did so in 2184 and finished his time in office in 2192. The universe split occurred in 2233.

 

[RPJOB]

There's noting in the episode that says that he was president unless you count a brief look at a graphic that wasn't intended to be read.

HOSHI: I don't care. Computer. Display file on Starfleet Officer Jonathan Archer.

COMPUTER: Working.

HOSHI: Son of famed warp specialist Henry Archer, Jonathan was appointed Captain of Starfleet's first warp five ship. His name is among the most recognised in the Federation. He earned an impressive list of commendations during his career. Historians called him the greatest explorer of the twenty second century. Two planets were named after him. (Archer switches it off with his fist) Hey.

ARCHER: There's nothing great about that man. He sold out Earth's future to a group of subhuman species. Great men are not peacemakers. Great men are conquerors.

HOSHI: Forget about him. Your future is just beginning. Can you imagine the look on the Emperor's face when he sees this ship? You'll be declared Hero of the Empire. Starfleet'll have to give you a command of your own.

ARCHER: I already have a command of my own.

As in the elements used from the novels that have been made canon you can pick one part and ignore the rest. Just because we know that Kirk's father's name is George doesn't make all of Best Destiny canon. If you want Archer to be president then it's just as easy to have him serve his term after the split with the prime universe. In the prime, he was president. In the nu, he wasn't. Easy peasy.

 

[iarann]

*sigh* All I'm trying to do is point out that it's ambiguous, that there's not enough evidence to prove either hypothesis. Why can nobody understand that? Why is it so hard to understand that "I don't know" is a valid answer?

At no point did I say it MUST be Jonathan Archer, I was just saying it's possible. You were the one making comments about how extremely unlikely it is and how much you dislike and don't understand people thinking it is Jonathan Archer. As I said, none of this is canon and we will likely never know (at least not until CBS/Paramount opens up the new universe to novels). It entertains me to think it's our Jonathan Archer, but it really doesn't matter and it certainly isn't certain

I never intended for the discussion to get heated, so please forgive any offense I may have caused, I was just trying to point out ways it could be Jonathan Archer and why it wouldn't be unreasonable to think so.

Speaking of reasons it could have been Jonathan Archer, we don't have any information on how Vulcan katra's affect human physiology do we? It is one thing Archer and McCoy have in common aside from extreme age...

 

[Pauln6]

*sigh* All I'm trying to do is point out that it's ambiguous, that there's not enough evidence to prove either hypothesis. Why can nobody understand that? Why is it so hard to understand that "I don't know" is a valid answer?

At no point did I say it MUST be Jonathan Archer, I was just saying it's possible. You were the one making comments about how extremely unlikely it is and how much you dislike and don't understand people thinking it is Jonathan Archer. As I said, none of this is canon and we will likely never know (at least not until CBS/Paramount opens up the new universe to novels). It entertains me to think it's our Jonathan Archer, but it really doesn't matter and it certainly isn't certain

I never intended for the discussion to get heated, so please forgive any offense I may have caused, I was just trying to point out ways it could be Jonathan Archer and why it wouldn't be unreasonable to think so.

Speaking of reasons it could have been Jonathan Archer, we don't have any information on how Vulcan katra's affect human physiology do we? It is one thing Archer and McCoy have in common aside from extreme age...

Yes, people who want to believe it's Jonathon can do so and vice versa. I think it adds to the charm. I feel the same way about the identity of the father Janice Rand's child from the Captain's Daughter novel. She never says it's Kirk but he fits the information that she gives so those that want to think it might have been can do so...

 

[F. King Daniel]

As a little aside, it seems McCoy wasn't originally going to be as heavily aged in "Encounter at Farpoint" as he eventually was. Take a look at this shot, an old makeup test pic (on the TNG-R first season extras, I think):

 

[Therin of Andor]

Yes, people who want to believe it's Jonathon can do so and vice versa. I think it adds to the charm.

Totally agree. And, as yet another factoid that is not categorically canonical, the authors of pro fic are also free to embrace or reject it. The editor of the day, or someone at CBS Consumer Products, might encourage agreement between two projects if the topic comes up - and there are examples where that has happened; we've certainly seen times where authors have outright disagreed with each other in print, whether purposely or accidentally.

One of my biggest frustrations arriving at TrekBBS, many years ago now, was when someone asked a question about why or how something might have occurred in the ST universe. Often there's no definitive answer to be found in the onscreen/canonical body of work, so the answer can only ever be "We don't know." Then people start speculating - and it's fun (supposedly) and sometimes controversial, but we still don't know.

In my naivety, I would sometimes put forward how something was touched upon in a previous, licensed novel, comic or RPG manual, only to have someone scream, "But those things aren't canon!"

Exactly. But such non-canonical or seemingly semi-canonical factoids do add to the charm.

It's usually safer discussing such things here in TrekLit, but attempting such an aside - however charming or helpful - in the other sections of the BBS can be... dangerous.

 

[RPJOB]

In my mond, id Paramount (or CBS or whoever holds the rights at any particular time) put their stamp of approval on a licensed product, be it a novel or RPG or comic, then it's part of hte multiverse and happened somewhere.

In the case of James R. Kirk, we just happened to see an episode from universe #1254 where Kirk's middle names actually starts with R. In Universe #7750 (The Brother's Keeper universe) we found out that Gary Mitchell did it deliberately as a taunt. In Universe #1 (the prime universe) the tombstone actually did say James T. Kirk.

Something doesn't fit? Take the out that Parallels gave us and say that it happened in another universe. Just as real. Just as valid. Just not the one that we're used to seeing.

The Royalle happened in a universe with slightly different physical laws and therefore absolute zero is a bit lower than in ours. Chekov is younger in the latest movie? No problem because it's a different universe. The Organians imprison the Klingons? Over there in Universe #538 ( the Blish Universe).

GARAK: I've given you all the answers I'm capable of.

BASHIR: You gave me answers, all right, but they were all different. What I want to know is of all the stories you told me, which ones were true and which ones weren't?

GARAK: My dear Doctor, they're all true.

BASHIR: Even the lies?

GARAK: Especially the lies.

 

[Christopher]

At no point did I say it MUST be Jonathan Archer, I was just saying it's possible. You were the one making comments about how extremely unlikely it is and how much you dislike and don't understand people thinking it is Jonathan Archer.

No, that is not what I said. What I said is that I don't understand people taking the reference to "Admiral Archer" as proof that Jonathan Archer is still alive at the time of the movie. It's not proof, because it's just a last name, so it's ambiguous. What's strange to me is that people don't seem to notice that ambiguity. What's even stranger is that when I simply try to point out that that ambiguity exists, I meet with such resistance to the very possibility and it blows up into some huge argument. I don't understand that. I'm just trying to say it's not proven and that the alternative explanation, that it's a descendant, is much less of a stretch.

I never intended for the discussion to get heated, so please forgive any offense I may have caused, I was just trying to point out ways it could be Jonathan Archer and why it wouldn't be unreasonable to think so.

And I've explained why I don't think it would be very reasonable. It would be a very improbable thing if, on top of all his other historic achievements, Archer somehow managed to set new records of longevity as well. Heck, it's improbable in general how long-lived Enterprise crew members tend to be. Given all the injuries and strange radiations and such they endure on a near-weekly basis, you'd think their life expectancies would be shorter than normal, not longer.

Speaking of reasons it could have been Jonathan Archer, we don't have any information on how Vulcan katra's affect human physiology do we? It is one thing Archer and McCoy have in common aside from extreme age...

Interesting thought, but I see no reason why a telepathic phenomenon like that would have a lasting effect on biology. And of course there's no reason to bother if Archer didn't actually live that long. Although if we accept Sussman's bio, he did make it to 133, which is almost as old as McCoy.

 

[RPJOB]

It's certainly possible that it's the Archer that we know but there's nothing that says he is actually alive during the movie either. We don't know how long Scotty has been on Delta Vega. Perhaps Archer died before he rescinded the order and nobody has had any reason to change it now. He might have been there for a decade or longer. The whole Delta Vega sequence is full of strange stuff. Why is Scotty out of food if Vulcan is (was) close enough that Spock could see the planet when it was destroyed? It's nit like Nero would have set up an observatory for him. Why does Scotty just leave with Kirk, abandoning his post to a Vulcan he's never seen before. Unless Keenser is a lot tougher than he looks old Spock could have committed any number of security breaches. And what exactly is Scotty doing there anyway? It just looks like a "hind-end of space" posting that Archer exiled him to. And what did Keenser do to deserve exile along with Scotty? Also, where did the Tribble come from? Are they actually native to Delta Vega, the bottom of a very voracious food chain that has the lobster critter at the top?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Speaking of reasons it could have been Jonathan Archer, we don't have any information on how Vulcan katra's affect human physiology do we?

I reckon contact with ancient katras is how the older T'Pau we see in TOS developed her thick, ancient-Vulcan accent, too.

 

[Therin of Andor]

where did the Tribble come from? Are they actually native to Delta Vega, the bottom of a very voracious food chain that has the lobster critter at the top?

Check out the current IDW two-parter!