Newest movie and enterprise relation

[PikeFan]

New thought*Chews cheek in thought* IDK if Archer would really live that long, with the old tech, he wouldn't last that long (or at least I would think)

ADDED COMMENT: Scotty appears a bit older, could it be that he spent longer on Delta Vega, like 10 yrs or something, could explain his frustration

 

[6079SmithW]

The admiral in question is Jonathan Archer of ENT because the reference makes absolutely zero sense if it is any one else. The fact that Orci and Kutzman confirm this isn't even relevant to or needed for this conversation. It was an intentional shout out to ENT and I personally never for an instant thought it was meant to be anything else.

To the posters who are denying this, I think you guys are overcomplicating things and thinking way too hard about it. Sometimes things really are just as they seem. Maybe I'm biased because I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor. The simplest and most logical explanation is that this Archer is our Archer from ENT.

Since I am a science major I should point out that I could be wrong of course, but I have not seen or heard any on-screen evidence to disprove the theory that this is ENT Archer.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Who's really going to lose some sleep if it's 150-year old Jonathan Archer or not? It still remains a reference to ENT either way.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Archer could have lived that long. In Trek's time, life expectancy is much longer. Elias Vaughn, for example, is 100 years old, and is in the prime of life. And of course there's McCoy.

In Archer's case, poasibly his constant time-travelling managed to extend his life?

 

[C.E. Evans]

Archer could have lived that long. In Trek's time, life expectancy is much longer.

But is it that long by TOS though? 100 or less was still the croaking age for Humans in some TOS episodes, and McCoy was still surprised to be alive at 137 in TNG. We're kind of assuming that it's normal for Humans to live that long, when he may very well be a very rare case (Humans may normally kick off somewhere between 110 or 120, which is still heckuva lot longer than the average of 80+ years we have today).

It's not an argument against Jonathan Archer being the one referenced in Star Trek XI--but if you ignore what the writers say in some offscreen interview--the possibility does exist that it might not be. Is it likely it's John-boy? Yes. Can we say that with 100% certainty? No...not with 100% certainty.

But regardless if one believes if it is or isn't Jonathan Archer, it really doesn't change anything as far as the reference being an intended fan-wank line...

 

[F. King Daniel]

Scotty was on Delta Vega for six months. He says it in the movie.

Jonathan Archer did more time travel in Enterprise than all the other Trek captains combined. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suggest he may have had some help (*cough* Daniels *cough*) in reaching Kirk's timeframe.

ENT's "A Night in Sickbay" ended with Porthos recieving a transplant from one of Phlox's alien lizard things. In Trek's world, it could well have given Porthos a 150+ year alien-lizard-thing lifespan.

The character profiles at startrekmovie.com (if they're still there) said something along the lines of Scotty having been assistant instructor in Admiral Archer's temporal mechanics class before a disciplinary action (i.e. his exile).

There's also the fact that, in real life, we may expand our lifespans well beyond 150 in the forseeable future. Scientists have been saying they're close to significantly slowing down aging for years.

Or maybe Archer visited the planet TNG's Admiral Jameson later would?

 

[Gojira]

It is perfectly plausible to think that the Admiral Archer mentioned in the new movie was Jonathan Archer from the Enterprise series. But I don't think the Beagle was Porthos. Incidentally I had the movie on in the background while I was writing a paper today.

 

[The Wormhole]

If you really want to get bitchy about canon, consider this: there is no canonical evidence that McCoy lived to be 140 or whatever he was in Farpoint. At no point is he actually referred to as Leonard McCoy in Farpoint. In dialogue he is only referred to as "the Admiral." Even the end credits only say "Special Appearance by DeForrest Kelley." Sure, he's played by De Kelley, he hates the transporter and mocks Vulcans, but if we play the game by strictly adhering to on-screen canon, than we have no proof he is McCoy.

There is exactly the same amount of evidence that "Admiral Archer" is Jonathan Archer as there is that "the Admiral" is Leonard McCoy.

But of we all accept that "the Admiral" is McCoy without question, and therefore there should be no question that "Admiral Archer" is Jonathan Archer.

 

[sbk1234]

Perhaps I should tag this as "spoiler," but I hear that the next flick will be subtitled, "The Mystery of Ancient Archer," and will examine Admiral Jonathan Archer's relationship to the new continuity of Star Trek.

 

[T'Girl]

there is no canonical evidence that McCoy lived to be 140 or whatever he was in Farpoint.

Except the late DeForrest Kelley did appear in said episode of TNG,
and Scott Bakula didn't appear in Star Trek Eleven.

 

[BlobVanDam]

If the writers say that's what they intended, then I count it as official.

Well, officially their private opinions, of course.

If they wrote it, and they say it is the same Archer, that's more than just opinion to me. They're the only ones who can state the true intentions of the reference. And while that doesn't make it canon, it's proof enough for me to accept that it's the same Archer.

But as C.E. Evans has said, it's a reference to ENT regardless, so I'm not losing any sleep over it Does it affect the story at all if it's a different Archer? Not at all. It's the reference that counts, and it's nice for them to include it either way.