TMP Theory on Captain Archer

[Shawnster]

A young T'Pau shows up on ENT's The Forge, Awakening and Kir'shara. She then appears again as an old woman in TOS Amok Time.

Col. Green shows up on ENT's Demons and Terra Prime. An illusion of Col. Green appears in TOS The Savage Curtain.

So, here are two characters that specifically appear in both Enterprise and TOS. They aren't the main crew of the NX-01, but they do appear.

Troi and Riker were discussing Archer's Enterprise during the TNG episode Pegasus. We see the discussion on ENT's These are the Voyages. I'm sorry those scenes were not included in the TNG episode. Maybe they were cut for time?

As noted, Archer is mentioned in TNG and ST09. At least one planet and one ship were named after the famed captain.

The tradition of naming experimental ships NX is included in ST:TSF and VOY: Hope and Fear In fact, that episode specifically lists the Dauntless' registration as NX-01A. This follows the tradition that, when reusing a registration number, a letter is added to the end. By listing the Dauntless as NX-01A, they are acknowledging there was an NX-01 previously.

The villainous Duras appears in ENT's Judgement, Bounty and The Expanse. His descendants continue their villainy throughout TNG and DS9.

 

[The Wormhole]

Really? I don't remember that.

There are references in Gambit to "Vulcan's last civil war" which the Enterprise writers confirmed was supposed to be the events of the Kir'shara trilogy.

 

[locutus101]

There are references in Gambit to "Vulcan's last civil war" which the Enterprise writers confirmed was supposed to be the events of the Kir'shara trilogy.

I'd hardly call that a civil war, there was that traitorous (who happened to be a romulan mole) "ruler of the Vulcans" (I don't remember his exact title) and well... everybody else. Once he was arrested everything was resolved. A civil war is a little more dramatic than that and also more complex to bring to an end.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'd hardly call that a civil war, there was that traitorous (who happened to be a romulan mole) "ruler of the Vulcans" (I don't remember his exact title) and well... everybody else. Once he was arrested everything was resolved. A civil war is a little more dramatic than that and also more complex to bring to an end.

The trilogy was described by Enterprise's producers as the "Vulcan Civil War" back when it was in production. Granted this was a carry over from the early story outlines in which a massive ground battle between two Vulcan armies in the desert was planned, but that had to be abandoned because of, well, budget.

But regardless, even after the budget forced them to be less ambitious, the Enterprise writers still intended those events to be what was referred to in Gambit.

 

[locutus101]

The trilogy was described by Enterprise's producers as the "Vulcan Civil War" back when it was in production. Granted this was a carry over from the early story outlines in which a massive ground battle between two Vulcan armies in the desert was planned, but that had to be abandoned because of, well, budget.

But regardless, even after the budget forced them to be less ambitious, the Enterprise writers still intended those events to be what was referred to in Gambit.

I see. Thanks for the info.

 

[BillJ]

If someone is OCD about things fitting together, Star Trek probably isn't the hobby for them. While it hangs together fairly well considering it was created across decades by hundreds of people, there are contradictions galore.

 

[locutus101]

If someone is OCD about things fitting together, Star Trek probably isn't the hobby for them. While it hangs together fairly well considering it was created across decades by hundreds of people, there are contradictions galore.

Making things fit is part of the fun.

 

[Shawnster]

ENT was an alternate timeline created as a result of the events of Star Trek: First Contact. This is why there are no references to ENT in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY or most of the movies since they all happened prior to the temporal incursion that altered the timeline.

 

[Kemaiku]

I have a theory on why the Enterprise NX-01 and Captain Archer are not mentioned as much in the primary universe:

It was probably because of the controversial things that Archer did, like torture and leave the Kobayashi Maru to be destroyed.

He was invited to the launch of the 1701 as the retired President of the UFP, I doubt he was such an unwanted individual if he was the celebrity of the occasion.

The reason is simply production order and characters having better things to talk about.

 

[Tenacity]

The tradition of naming experimental ships NX

Problem there is the "NX" in NX-01 didn't indicate experimental. Archer (talking to pirates) said that his ship was a NX class.

At least one planet and one ship were named after the famed captain

Not a given, Archer isn't a uncommon name. And perhaps the planet Archer is located in the constellation Sagittarius?

 

[The Wormhole]

ENT was an alternate timeline created as a result of the events of Star Trek: First Contact. This is why there are no references to ENT in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY or most of the movies since they all happened prior to the temporal incursion that altered the timeline.

No, this isn't true at all. Certainly the fourth season did not operate under this belief.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No, this isn't true at all. Certainly the fourth season did not operate under this belief.

Neither did Seasons 1-3.

 

[The Wormhole]

Neither did Seasons 1-3.

I know, but what does give this theory some legitimacy is that at the end of the second season Braga did suddenly preaching it to excuse away the mounting continuity complaints, most especially after the Borg episode. And it might have served a dual purpose of creating a sense of ambiguity for the Xindi arc in the coming third season.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I know, but what does give this theory some legitimacy is that at the end of the second season Braga did suddenly preaching it to excuse away the mounting continuity complaints, most especially after the Borg episode. And it might have served a dual purpose of creating a sense of ambiguity for the Xindi arc in the coming third season.

The Borg episode was tight with continuity.

 

[The Wormhole]

The Borg episode was tight with continuity.

It' not as much as a "Canon Violation" as people make it seem, but I'm not sure I'd call it "tight with continuity."

Mind you, regardless of it being about the Borg, it is one of the most entertaining episodes of Enterprise's second season.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It' not as much as a "Canon Violation" as people make it seem, but I'm not sure I'd call it "tight with continuity."

Mind you, regardless of it being about the Borg, it is one of the most entertaining episodes of Enterprise's second season.

Tight. Totally tight. Air tight. Up tight and clean out of sight.

 

[Sci]

My point is that to be consistent, there should be an in-universe explanation for why they are never spoken of,. Like maybe Archer did something that cast a pall over his mission back then.

Here's the thing: Star Trek is a collection of works of art (as are all works of fiction). Which means that, ultimately, Star Trek as you experience it is the result of an attempt on the part of a group of people to communicate with you.

What this means is that we, the audience members with whom the artists are trying to communicate, have to have a certain level of generosity towards the artists if we want enjoy the communication and the work of art being communicated. That doesn't mean pretending to love everything or ignoring problems with how a story is told. But it does mean, for instance, not holding minor inconsistencies that could not possibly be avoided against the shows.

So, for instance, no, we should not hold it against Star Trek that Kirk's middle initial is "R" in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" but "T" everywhere else. We should not hold it against the show that the make-up for Tellarites was so much worse in TOS than it was in ENT. We should not hold it against the show/films that the visual effects in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan are so much more limited than the visual effects in Star Trek Into Darkness. We should not hold it against the show/films that Zachary Quinto does not look exactly like Leonard Nimoy at that age, or that Robin Curtis does not look exactly like Kristie Alley. And we should not hold it against the show that the NX-01 and her crew were never mentioned in the earlier shows.

How do we solve these production problems that could not reasonably be helped? Participate in the communication actively rather than passively: Use our imaginations to pretend that it is all a consistent, cohesive universe, rather than the patchwork of occasionally-conflicting stories made up as they went along that it actually is.

 

[The Wormhole]

I just realized, this thread has gone on 6 pages wondering why Archer doesn't get mentioned in the 23rd or 24th centuries, but why hasn't Captain Garret got mentioned at all after Yesterday's Enterprise? After all, as an Enterprise Captain, she's one of Starfleet's elite, and add onto that her sacrificing her life to defend a Klingon colony from the Romulans was the defining action that solidified peace between the Federation and the Romulans. So why doesn't she ever get a mention? Hell, even Captain Desoto got mentioned on DS9, and it's never been made clear why he's considered one of Starfleet's best.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I just realized, this thread has gone on 6 pages wondering why Archer doesn't get mentioned in the 23rd or 24th centuries, but why hasn't Captain Garret got mentioned at all after Yesterday's Enterprise? After all, as an Enterprise Captain, she's one of Starfleet's elite, and add onto that her sacrificing her life to defend a Klingon colony from the Romulans was the defining action that solidified peace between the Federation and the Romulans. So why doesn't she ever get a mention? Hell, even Captain Desoto got mentioned on DS9, and it's never been made clear why he's considered one of Starfleet's best.

All sorts of great Captains are one off mentions. Was Garth mentioned before or after Whom Gods Destroy? How about Pike? Neither Kirk nor Spock mention him outside of the Menagerie.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Pike's name comes up again in "Mirror, Mirror," though.