It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of what would constitute the original timeline. When we are invoking time travel it would be very difficult to state "this is the original timeline" aside from what an outside observer might be able to see.
New Short Trek: The Trouble With Edward
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
Archer becomes necessary at some point after the first initial rewrite at First Contact, possibly due to an earlier change as part of the TC. The TC is happening and centered on the 22nd most likely because of all the lost butterflies after FC. Its become a weak focal point, ripe for hijacking the timeline.
Basically, the fact that Archer is important NOW after many rewrites, does not mean that Archer was that important in the original pre-interference TOS timeline.
But, the Archer timeline is needed for the Borg stuff to happen, and was a part of the "Pegasus" (TNG) events (a story that exists in the "original timeline"), not to mention touching the mirror universe and Data's creation. Headcanon can be whatever you want, but the facts all point to the conclusion that the so-called Archer timeline was always a part of the "pre-Archer timeline."
Going with the "flexible" timeline of Star Trek, my view is that it's a matter of degrees rather than kind.
Hypothetical Timeline
Point of Divergence (First Contact): Zephram Cochrane was always part of Star Trek's history (Timeline A) but he became a much nicer and less bitter man as a result of his encounter with Picard as well as more devoted to "selling" spaceflight to the world--which resulted in things being slightly more advanced as well as important than they were in the (Timeline B).
Point of Divergence (Enterprise): Captain Jonathan Archer was probably always an important individual in Starfleet but it's just as likely he wasn't the Captain of the Enterprise but maybe the Captain of the Constitution with the new name a result of Zephram's encounter with Picard.
The Temporal Cold War results in a lot more technology, a war with the Xindi, and other stuff happening that makes DISCOVERY happen.
Point of Divergence (Discovery): The Klingon Empire has gone through some changes as a result of a much stronger Federation, Sulliban terrorism, and possibly a much nastier version of the Augment Virus (that happened anyway in the original timeline). So they go to war with the Federation when there was previously only skirmishes. Technology is far more advanced here but two of the biggest discoveries (irony) are classified.
Michael Burnham is adopted by Sarek when she originally wasn't because Archer helps find the Kirshara when originally the Syrannites did it alone--and maybe her parents were killed because Archer stirred up the Klingons a bit more.
What effect does this have on TOS and TNG?
Not necessarily as much as it might because the Time Police (Daniels) and other people are there to keep things going reasonably similar. The details might be different but presumably they're there to make Kirk find Khan, the Organians to prevent a SECOND Klingon-Federation War, and so on.
But details will be different like the fact the TOS Enterprise probably now looks closer to its Kelvin counterpart and so on.
Timeline-C exists now that is going to be Picard where the Federation seems a lot nastier than "All Good Things" with its planned Data-slaves, Hobus possibly being a result of these changes, and a lot more pew-pew bang-bang. Picard is still Picard and the galaxy is still the galaxy but there's a rougher more actioney overtown as well as the technology being more advanced.
Last edited:
Then why was there a planet named after him in the original pre-interference timeline?
That's a bit like saying that Thomas Street has commemorative routes in every city, town and village in the English-speaking world. (He did have a crater named after him, though.)
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Named for him, or named for his father who created the warp five engine?
It wasn't named with any foresight in mind. It's highly possible when Enterprise was being created that the character was named Jonathan Archer to make it LOOK like something referenced on a previous (or later) show was named for him. Or it ended up just being a coincidence as the name Archer could have easily just come up again somehow. I tend to think it was just sheer coincidence that just so happened to fit in nicely.
Last edited:
Very much a coincidence. Otherwise, the argument could be made that Archer in VOY was related somehow.
Well, according to Enterprise's retcon it is indeed named after Jonathan Archer. Even if we're entertaining the idea of an Archer-less timeline, would not the planet be named after whoever the captain of the ship was that first visited the planet rather than the engineer who created the engine that made visiting the planet possible?
You're missing an "and"
Very true! Let's not kid ourselves; the planet was really named after her!Very much a coincidence. Otherwise, the argument could be made that Archer in VOY was related somehow.
Technically Porthos was the first Earth being to set foot on the planet. They should've really called Porthos IV.
We need more dogs in Star Trek.
A Welsh Corgi should be the next one to rule the galaxy.
A Welsh Corgi should be the next one to rule the galaxy.
A lot of times, there is no rhyme or reason why something gets a name. In another timeline, perhaps it wasn’t the first planet that the NX-01 visited?
Mind you, I don't have a problem with Archer having been *A* Starfleet Captain and even an important one. I just wouldn't make him a messianic Enterprise captain.
Why couldn't he have captained the Constitution the Constitution-class is named for?
Hundred years too early.
Not quite what I meant.
Mind you, using real Naval Traditions, the Galaxy class would require there be a USS Galaxy.
Ah. My mistake.
There is a USS Galaxy according to the TNG Technical Manual. Not sure if it ever gets a name drop in the series.
Last edited:
Similar threads
