Will there ever be any novels set between 2161 and 2254?

[Sci]

^Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...you gave it first, Chris.

Indeed he did. But I'm an arrogant sombitch -- I went and posted my reply before I looked to see if anyone else had said anything similar, I'm afraid.

I think Sci's just subtly following The 33rd Rule of Aquisition. (Look it up.)

Christopher really has nothing to give me that I want. Now, if I were an aspiring author and he were an editor, then the 33rd Rule would apply. But I am not, and he is not.

 

[Rush Limborg]

 

[Nerroth]

Aside from the likes of the Kelvin, one other type of ship I'd like to see more of in a story set in such an era would be the NCC-1000, as shown in the 2006 Ships of the Line calendar...

 

[David Brennon]

Nobody said it was Jonathan Archer.

Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci did.

 

[Sci]

Nobody said it was Jonathan Archer.

Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci did.

True, but creatively reinterpreting the line is not unreasonable, given the lack of specificity in the film itself. Especially since, as I said, the idea of a Starfleet officer referring to a former Federation President by his old Starfleet rank is as absurd as someone calling the former U.S. President "General Eisenhower."

 

[Rush Limborg]

Aside from the likes of the Kelvin, one other type of ship I'd like to see more of in a story set in such an era would be the NCC-1000, as shown in the 2006 Ships of the Line calendar...

Ah. The Bonaventure class.

Yeah, I'd like to see that one, too--perhaps the "sister class" of the Kelvin's class.

What is the Kelvin's class, anyhow?

 

[David Brennon]

True, but creatively reinterpreting the line is not unreasonable, given the lack of specificity in the film itself. Especially since, as I said, the idea of a Starfleet officer referring to a former Federation President by his old Starfleet rank is as absurd as someone calling the former U.S. President "General Eisenhower."

I get what you're saying, I have to disagree however. The writers said exactly what they meant. That's canon, there is no reinterpreting that. The mix up of a Trek writer saying something militarily untrue has happened many times before and should just be taken at face value.

At the end of the day, no matter whatever way the argument goes, I was simply correcting Christopher. Someone did in fact say that it was Johnathan Archer, two someones who are in fact the authoritative word on the film. I'm not offering it is evidence in favor for or against Procutus' theory of an entirely different universe, just correcting a mistake.

(Though I'd like to add that I agree with Sci and Christopher. Archer being alive in the 2250's just shows we're in an alternate universe, divergent from the Kelvin incident, not an entirely different universe... though, Procutus I do have to say it is an interesting idea worthy of SNW if it was still going.)

 

[Sci]

True, but creatively reinterpreting the line is not unreasonable, given the lack of specificity in the film itself. Especially since, as I said, the idea of a Starfleet officer referring to a former Federation President by his old Starfleet rank is as absurd as someone calling the former U.S. President "General Eisenhower."

I get what you're saying, I have to disagree however. The writers said exactly what they meant. That's canon, there is no reinterpreting that.

Author's statements of intent are important, but they aren't canon. The film is canon. And in this case, the author's statements conflict with common sense.

Which doesn't, of course, mean that it wasn't Jonathan Archer that Scotty was referring to. The line is ambiguous; it could be, it might not be. But there's no contradiction with canon by having it be ENT's Archer -- nothing canonical established that Archer died before 2258, as the bio screen's death note wasn't actually seen onscreen -- even if there is an arguable contradiction with common sense.

 

[Turtletrekker]

The writers said exactly what they meant. That's canon, there is no reinterpreting that.

No? Ron Moore has said that it was his intention that the "Captain Shelby" mentioned in You Are Cordially Invited... be the Shelby from The Best of Both Worlds, but Peter David "reinterpreted" it in New Frontier.

See also-- the fate of Trip Tucker.

 

[JoeP]

^ Not to mention, also, what was said on screen about Archer's "prized beagle". Though this is not explicitly saying "this is the former captain of the USS Enterprise NX-01 as seen on the television series 'Star Trek: Enterprise'", it does lend credence to the idea that this is not just another similarly-named officer.

Nobody said it was Jonathan Archer.

Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci did.

True, but creatively reinterpreting the line is not unreasonable, given the lack of specificity in the film itself. Especially since, as I said, the idea of a Starfleet officer referring to a former Federation President by his old Starfleet rank is as absurd as someone calling the former U.S. President "General Eisenhower."

But can the same not be said of the movie when it chose not to use a fleeting reference to Archer being elected President? From what I remember, the only indication of this was a quick shot on a terminal screen. I'd say that lacks the same specificity, and was only put there as an easter egg for the fans, not as a real development for the character. Was this ever picked up in any other novels? I've not read any post-finale ENT books.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Ron Moore has said that it was his intention that the "Captain Shelby" mentioned in You Are Cordially Invited... be the Shelby from The Best of Both Worlds, but Peter David "reinterpreted" it in New Frontier.

Actually, Peter David had been told he could do what he liked with Shelby because there was such little likelihood of her being mentioned again canonically, by Ron Moore supposedly forgot the discussion.

 

[David Brennon]

True, but creatively reinterpreting the line is not unreasonable, given the lack of specificity in the film itself. Especially since, as I said, the idea of a Starfleet officer referring to a former Federation President by his old Starfleet rank is as absurd as someone calling the former U.S. President "General Eisenhower."

I get what you're saying, I have to disagree however. The writers said exactly what they meant. That's canon, there is no reinterpreting that.

Author's statements of intent are important, but they aren't canon. The film is canon. And in this case, the author's statements conflict with common sense.

Which doesn't, of course, mean that it wasn't Jonathan Archer that Scotty was referring to. The line is ambiguous; it could be, it might not be. But there's no contradiction with canon by having it be ENT's Archer -- nothing canonical established that Archer died before 2258, as the bio screen's death note wasn't actually seen onscreen -- even if there is an arguable contradiction with common sense.

I find that to be a bit of a cop out. If the writers say "this is what we mean by this particular line.", especially in a film taking place in an alternate time line, then how is it conflicting with common sense? Because he would have been 146? McCoy was 137 at the start of TNG, was that a stretch?

As for the title issue, while it's a stretch, it could be said the titles are interchangeable, or at least substitutable. When President Eisenhower left the White House, his 5-Star General of the Army rank was reinstated and he was reactivated as an active duty officer. In fact, he preferred to be called General. When announcing his death at Walter Reed, Brig. Gen. Hughes, commander of the hospital said

"General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States, died quietly at 12:25 this noon after a long and heroic battle against overwhelming illness. His passing was peaceful, and he experienced no distress."

General Hughes wasn't the only one to refer to the former President as General, President Nixon called him by his rank in public statements, including his eulogy for his former boss.

Then again, Tricky Dick was a little absurd

It is not unthinkable that Archer would feel the same. Starfleet and space were very important parts of his life. Then again, I could be reaching.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The Kelvin is enough evidence that it's an alternate timeline from the get-go. No way is that ship a product of pre-TOS technology.

If you have to pick a divergence point, I suggest the start of Enterprise's fourth season; the JJverse is what happens if Archer fails to resolve the Temporal Cold War.

 

[David Brennon]

The writers said exactly what they meant. That's canon, there is no reinterpreting that.

No? Ron Moore has said that it was his intention that the "Captain Shelby" mentioned in You Are Cordially Invited... be the Shelby from The Best of Both Worlds, but Peter David "reinterpreted" it in New Frontier.

See also-- the fate of Trip Tucker.

Sorry if I wasn't be specific enough. We were discussing the Abrams Star Trek film and I was referring to Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci in this particular instance only wherein they specifically said their intentions. I have since been corrected on the canon statement. Which, by the way, I forgot to mention in my last post that I concede that point to you Sci. It makes more sense when you look at other contradictions like those mentioned by Turtletrekker... however these are slightly different circumstances. Not to mention that, as is so often (over) stated by members of these boards, the novels are not in any way shape or form canon and so do not have to conform to the canon established in the various series and films. That doesn't mean I don't like the books, in fact I LOVE them (wouldn't be here if I didn't).

 

[David Brennon]

The Kelvin is enough evidence that it's an alternate timeline from the get-go. No way is that ship a product of pre-TOS technology.

If you have to pick a divergence point, I suggest the start of Enterprise's fourth season; the JJverse is what happens if Archer fails to resolve the Temporal Cold War.

That is a very interesting point that I had not considered.

 

[Captain Robert April]

It solves all sorts of problems by just moving the divergence point back about eighty years.

 

[Christopher]

I get what you're saying, I have to disagree however. The writers said exactly what they meant. That's canon, there is no reinterpreting that.

As others have pointed out, that's categorically untrue. First, only what's onscreen is canon, by definition. Second, filmmaking is a collaborative medium, and the intentions of the screenwriters are not always absolute doctrine. If everything Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci said were law, then the science in the movie would've been a hell of a lot more coherent. They're members of the "Supreme Court," but J.J. Abrams is the "Chief Justice," and he can reinterpret every single word of theirs if he wants. So whatever statements they've made in interviews about their intentions only represent their own opinions.

Third, writers change their minds all the time, especially about small details like that. And fourth, a writer's opinions and interpretations are not gospel. Every reader or viewer brings one's own interpretations to the text, and that's how it's supposed to be. Only the most arrogant writer would try to deprive the audience of the freedom to make their own decisions about the meaning of a story, even if those decisions conflict with the writer's take. The job of a writer is to make you think, not to tell you what to think.

^ Not to mention, also, what was said on screen about Archer's "prized beagle". Though this is not explicitly saying "this is the former captain of the USS Enterprise NX-01 as seen on the television series 'Star Trek: Enterprise'", it does lend credence to the idea that this is not just another similarly-named officer.

Who says love of pets can't run in the family? Admiral Archer could be Jonathan's son or daughter or grandson or granddaughter, and could've learned to love beagles based on Jonathan's example.

I find that to be a bit of a cop out. If the writers say "this is what we mean by this particular line.", especially in a film taking place in an alternate time line, then how is it conflicting with common sense? Because he would have been 146? McCoy was 137 at the start of TNG, was that a stretch?

McCoy was born a century later. It stands to reason that longevity would be greater for his generation.

 

[Sci]

The Kelvin is enough evidence that it's an alternate timeline from the get-go. No way is that ship a product of pre-TOS technology.

Really? How's that? The Kelvin didn't seem any more divergent from the kinds of tech established in "The Cage" than, say, TOS did from the kinds of tech established in TMP.

Let's face it -- Star Trek has never shied away from updating its technology if it started to look outdated by real life standards, and no one's ever claimed that TMP took place in a different continuity than TOS.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The Kelvin is enough evidence that it's an alternate timeline from the get-go. No way is that ship a product of pre-TOS technology.

Really? How's that? The Kelvin didn't seem any more divergent from the kinds of tech established in "The Cage" than, say, TOS did from the kinds of tech established in TMP.

Let's face it -- Star Trek has never shied away from updating its technology if it started to look outdated by real life standards, and no one's ever claimed that TMP took place in a different continuity than TOS.

Except you're looking at it backwards. This ship is supposed to come from around twenty years before "The Cage". The Kelvin looks more like something out of TNG, not "The Cage"; it sure as hell doesn't look like it came from before then. Hell, for that matter, it's about the same size as a Galaxy class ship. And the JJprise is even bigger than the Enterprise-D.

 

[Sci]

The Kelvin is enough evidence that it's an alternate timeline from the get-go. No way is that ship a product of pre-TOS technology.

Really? How's that? The Kelvin didn't seem any more divergent from the kinds of tech established in "The Cage" than, say, TOS did from the kinds of tech established in TMP.

Let's face it -- Star Trek has never shied away from updating its technology if it started to look outdated by real life standards, and no one's ever claimed that TMP took place in a different continuity than TOS.

Except you're looking at it backwards. This ship is supposed to come from around twenty years before "The Cage". The Kelvin looks more like something out of TNG, not "The Cage"; it sure as hell doesn't look like it came from before then.

Um, no, I'm not looking at it backwards. I'm saying that the differences between the tech on the Kelvin and the tech in "The Cage" to me don't seem all that much different from the tech in TOS and the tech in TMP. Either way, one could argue that the tech in one looks like it can't have developed from the other, and yet we haven't tried to claim that TMP was from a different continuity.

And I don't agree that the Kelvin tech looked more sophisticated than in TOS. It just looks like it has a different design aesthetic to me.

And the JJprise is even bigger than the Enterprise-D.

That depends on which piece of visual evidence you prefer -- the ST09 Enterprise looked about the same size as the TOS Enterprise when we pulled back from the ship through the bridge window, but it looked larger than the Enterprise-D when we saw shuttles landing in the hanger bay. That's because they re-scaled the ship midway through production.

And, frankly, even if the ST09 Enterprise is larger -- what of it? The Titanic was larger than an Ohio-class attack submarine, but that doesn't mean it was more advanced.