Scott Bakula On Archer, Enteprise Finale & Future Trek + More Emmy Pics | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Scott Bakula On Archer, Enteprise Finale & Future Trek + More Emmy Pics August 30, 2010

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,ENT , trackback

As Captain Jonathan Archer Scott Bakula lead the crew of the NX-01 for four years on Star Trek: Enterprise. And in a new interview, the actor talks about how the show bowed out, where he wanted to see Archer go. He also talks about the possibility of returning to Trek. Excerpts below, plus more pictures of Scott at the Emmys last night.

 

Bakula on Enterprise’s "odd" end and Archer’s road not travelled

In talking to the official Star Trek site, Bakula was mostly diplomatic talking about the controversial finale for Enterprise "These are the Voyages", saying that he was "off-put by it" and he wasn’t sure he ever "got" what Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were trying to do with it, but noted that it was "their call". As for where he would like to have taken Captain Archer, Bakula noted:

Things were dictated by the times, by it being post-9/11, but I wanted us to hopefully get back to having a little bit more fun on the show and to get out of that whole Xindi thing. That would have been fun. I think we were pointing in that direction. I think the group was ready to go. The cast was ready to get there, and I think we could have had a blast. But we just didn’t get to go there. And I wanted Archer to kind of grow up and lighten up a little bit.


Scott Bakula as Capt Archer with Jonathan Frakes as Cmdr. Riker in Enterprise finale "These Are The Voyages"

Go to the official Trek site for the rest, including Bakula talking about about Chuck and a "cameo" in the Quantum Leap movie.

Archer in Star Trek sequel? – Bakula is ready

As we all know, Scott Bakula’s character of Archer did get a shout out in the 2009 Star Trek movie, when Scotty was talking to Spock Prime and Kirk on Delta Vega, admitting that he lost Admiral Archer’s beagle. Since then Star Trek co-writer Bob Orci has confirmed that the "Admiral Archer" is the same Jonathan Archer as seen in Enterprise. And of course, since the events of Enterprise happened before Nero attacked the USS Kelvin and split the Trek timelines, all of Enterprise is in the same timeline as the new movie timeline. Bakula was asked if JJ Abrams called with a "great way" to get him into the next movie what would he say, and Bakula’s simple reply was "Yes."


Scotty (Simon Pegg) was exiled to Delta Vega by Admiral Archer – could Scott Bakula appear in the Star Trek sequel?

POLL: What do you think of the idea?

Expect new crew to return for fourth Star Trek film?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Bonus Pics – Scott at Emmys

Here are some more pics of Scott at the Emmy’s from Sunday night in Lost Angeles


Scott Bakula on the red carpet at the Emmy Awards


Scott Bakula with Joel McHale at Emmy Awards


Scott Bakula and wife Chelsea Field dancing at Governor’s Ball

 

Comments

1. Harry Ballz - August 30, 2010

I like Scott Bakula as an actor and he seems like a genuinely nice person, but he WAS sadly miscast in Enterprise.

2. robowarrior - August 30, 2010

I think he should have a big role in the next movie. At least the same amount of screentime as Pike had. I’d be way more enthusiastic then.

3. Spartan128 - August 30, 2010

So if Admiral Archer is alive and well in Kirk time, i wonder if Tpol survive Vulcan explosion.

4. Trekpower.org - August 30, 2010

In my opinion, Star Trek – Enterprise should be continued under director abrams and his team. it is the only series that takes place in both time – lines and it should really be continued.

A cameo or something like this could be the begining of more tv – seasons of STAR TREK ENTERPRISE: the series is full of life, still now.

On my website there is a link to a petition about ENT.

Matthias

5. Damian - August 30, 2010

I am all for an Archer cameo. Everyone involved with Enterprise always have said what a great guy he was to work with, just an all around nice guy. It would be nice to see him one last time. I generally liked Enterprise as a whole, but I do agree with others who were hugely disappointed with the finale. This would not erase that, but at least it would give him a chance for a proper farewell.

To be honest, I would not even have an issue with a substantial role, but that is highly unlikely. The Abrams team made a decidely clean break from the Berman years. But I could see them having him show up in a cameo role, maybe to mend fences with Scotty, or even just to see the Enterprise get an official launching. In any event, the writers are creative enough to find a way for Bakula to appear without it being distracting or taking away from the overall story.

6. BiggestTOSfanever - August 30, 2010

Alright, here’s what REALLY needs to be in the next movie:
Scotty busy redoing the engineering room,
Updates on the Shields and the phasers so they look canon,
Porthos (!) and Amanda saved via the transporter.
A cool name like STAR TREK: To Boldly Go…
A look at new Vulcan,
And either the Gorn, angry because new Vulcan is in their territory, or the Klingons after Spock Prime with the info Nero gave them.
I can dream can’t I? ;)

7. Symar - August 30, 2010

I have to agree with Mr. Bakula about the Xindi-related episodes. While Trek has always taken on current social issues, that story arc took the whole series into a dark and brooding place. They lost me as a viewer during that season.

TOS and even TNG managed to balance the dramatic equation with some well-timed humor to break the tension. “Enterprise” never seemed to be able to adopt this model even though they eventually found ways to close episodes with a light-hearted comment.

8. I'm Dead Jim! - August 30, 2010

Ample nacelles. That’s all I’m sayin’.

9. gingerly - August 30, 2010

It’s a real shame. They had a great cast of committed actors and the writers failed them. :( Scott Backula seemed to get what the show should have been better than the writers.

Still Enterprise did manage to have a few gems.

Carbon Creek is one of the better Trek episodes, but they didn’t flesh out their supporting cast well-enough and made the human leads too infallible/unlikeable.

The alien races either strayed too far from canon or weren’t particularly interesting.

10. Jordan - August 30, 2010

Isn’t archer really old in the movies? Like 140?

11. Lore - August 30, 2010

#3 I’m betting T pol was working on the Vulcan embassy on Earth.

12. Joe Sidney - August 30, 2010

If not Archer, than a Porthos spot would be a funny nod.

If I remember, T’Pol was uncomfortable by Porthos; it would be a strecth to have a 30-second scene with Spock finding and having to handle the dog for a second.

Did the novelation or one of the scripts end with Porthos rematerializing in the Enterprise transporter?

13. They call me Stasiu - August 30, 2010

A blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo by Bakula could be fun.
Imagine: The admiral is finishing up an inspection tour of the Enterprise and gives Scotty the evil eye as he passes by…

14. wissaboo - August 30, 2010

Great interview with Scott. He is always so diplomatic and positive.

15. Mr. EPCOT - August 30, 2010

Honestly, I think Scott Bakula would have been a lot better than Tyler Perry in Star Trek ’09. There’s a certain logic to it, and have an added sentimental value for fans at the end of the movie when the Admiral promotes Kirk to Captain of the Enterprise.

16. NX-03 - August 30, 2010

Just watched an episode of the Gadget Show on Five in the UK, a mainstream show, and the presenter went to visit a futuristic hotel room, very Star Trek like and what did he utter on walking in?! “I feel like Jonathan Archer!” Archer!!! not Kirk , not Picard, Sisko or Janeway, oh no! As a huge ENT fan i totally geeked out. I know it was just one guy saying it, but that has got to say something about current status of the ENT in the minds of the public, whether it be new JJ trek fans checking out old stuff or people just plain discovering it and liking it. I’d like to think so anyway.

17. Chuck Watters - August 30, 2010

#15 – I think Tyler Perry is a fine actor but he was brought in because of his substantial fan base.

18. AmyMarie - August 30, 2010

Someone needs a haircut….

19. ML31 - August 30, 2010

While an Archer cameo would be fun, the character would be around 180 years old! Not sure it would work out very well….

20. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - August 30, 2010

I think that having Scott Bakula in Trek 12 would be a great Idea. maybe have him with Scotty as they try and get porthoes back. Or maybe a little bigger role. But Scott is right about the ending of Enterprise. Also most everyone thinks that season 4 of Enterprise was it’s best and that they were finaly getting on track and if they would have made it to season 5 then they would have made seasons 6 and 7 and who knows maybe an 8th.

21. Kevin - August 30, 2010

Re: Quantum Leap Movie. They better not do some cheesy reboot like the A-Team. I want to see Bakula as Sam. Make it a two hour film where he has to do 1 final mission before he can leap home.

22. Phaser Guy - August 30, 2010

Some of the bad guys like Xindi could show up in the next Trek movie.

23. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - August 30, 2010

#22. Actualy the Xindi are no longer the enemy as Capt Archer was able to make peace with them and in fact some xindi even helped Archer destroy the weapon.

24. Lensflaresforever - August 30, 2010

#19 See Encounter at Far Point.

25. Alec - August 30, 2010

Two points: first, put Bakula in the sequel in a cameo role; second, the JJ-verse is NOT the same as the Enterprise one!

1) At the moment, the JJ-verse is very new and lacks a strong, visible connection to the established 50+ years of original canon. Of course, having Spock Prime in Trek 2009 helped a great deal. But it still felt like a disparate universe, a very different universe, when there should be a strong, visible link to what came before. Having a small cameo scene (or scenes) with Archer ordering Kirk about or inspecting the Enterprise would provide a further, good link to past-Trek. Also, Bakula is a well-known actor, a fairly ‘big name’, and it would certainly do no harm to have him in the film.

2) However, I still dispute the contention that Enterprise is necessarily part of the canon in this new universe. The writers might well say so (apparently they have); but they are effectively gods in this universe and might just be telling those persons what they want to hear. For remember that this film employs the multi-verse concept: every thing that can happen, does happen – somewhere. I.e., there are an infinite number of alternative realities. The writers can pick any one of these possible time-lines and make them actual: whatever they want to happen, they can have happen in ‘their’ time-line. To further strengthen this view, consider this. If this new time-line follows on from Enterprise (which as I’ve explained above would be a remarkable, truly remarkable happenstance) then this universe should, in obvious and important ways, be the same as the Enterprise one. Why then has the planet Delta Vega ‘moved’? Why has Kirk’s brother, no small character in Trek lore, ‘changed’ his name? Why, in such a short space of time, have the ships, weapons, etc (though not Engineering!) advanced so very much?

No, this is not the same time-line as Enterprise. The reason the planet DV has moved is because the writers thought (correctly) that it would be more dramatic to have it near Vulcan: it is no where near Vulcan in Enterprise. The reason Kirk’s brother’s name has changed is either an oversight or a detail thought too trivial to uphold. The reason the technology is incomparable with Enterprise or even the later Trek series/movies is because, unlike Enterprise, this universe has been designed to look as futuristic as possible (bar Budgineering). This is a different time-line. But the casual fan/Trekkie probably won’t realise this. Finally, why might people want to say that it is in fact the same time-line? Well, it would then be a strong link to prior Trek. Otherwise, the only link to prior Trek, however crucial he was, would by Leonard Nimoy’s small cameo. Otherwise, it would be all new. And the Trekkies might not like that…

26. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - August 30, 2010

“Ente-prise” finale?

27. Thorny - August 30, 2010

“In A Mirror, Darkly” reportedly indicated (in the bio Archer read on the Defiant) that Archer survived to see the launching of NCC-1701, but that was original universe Trek where the NCC-1701 launched 10-20 years before Kirk.

28. OneBuckFilms - August 30, 2010

I can imagine an old Admiral Archer speaking with Scotty in the Engineering section, and apologising for leaving him stranded, with Scotty accepting the apology, and perhaps indicating a kind of friendship they may have shared.

Perhaps Kirk would come in and find them both drinking and reminiscing, Archer would leave with some advice for them both, perhaps about remembering that Starfleet was about exploration of the unknown, and as Archer leaves for a shuttle, his theme from Enterprise hinted at warmly before moving to the next scene.

A touching tribute to what has come before, with a sense of warmth, that can be used to provide some insight for newer fans about the true mission of Starfleet.

29. Capt Mike of the Terran Empire - August 30, 2010

#27. Correct. Remember that on the Tng Pilot Encounter at Far Point that Dr. MCcoy was 137 years old. So yes Archer can be in the next Movie and of course Topol being a long lived Vulcan can also be there if she was not on Vulcan of course. Also. The Enterprise time line being before Nero interfeared can be the same time line with all events that happend. The Romulan War and the founding of the Federation and Archers Speach. Though Charles Trip Tucker the 3rd did not die.

30. ety3 - August 30, 2010

Sorry, but putting Bakula in the film makes little sense. ENT was the least watched of the sequel series so who, exactly, would it appeal to?

(Like most here, I believe ENT was misguided from the first utterance of the phrase “temporal cold war” and should have been doing stories in season one that they didn’t actually do until season four.)

31. StarFuryG7 - August 30, 2010

You know, I have mixed feelings about the prospect of Bakula being included in the next Trek film in some capacity, because I like the guy and didn’t feel he was the problem with “Enterprise” per se, but at the same time, I think there needs to be a concerted effort to steer clear of prior Trek efforts, especially when it comes to shows that weren’t a success, like “Enterprise” and “Voyager”.

32. Alec - August 30, 2010

OneBuckFilms – I like the idea of having the Enterprise music playing for Archer’s cameo. One of my problems with Trek 2009 was the lack of identity in the music. It was a very different (and sadly for me too repetitive) soundtrack. It was a good soundtrack; but there was a wealth of Star Trek music that was ignored. The TMP/TNG theme and Kirk’s theme from TWOK were big oversights, in my opinion; as were the many great TOS tracks. Having the TOS theme playing at the end was a nice touch; but not enough for me. There were so many references to prior trek in the film; none of these, sadly, were musical. The music should tell the story of the film. And the music should be part of the identity of the film: of the franchise (think of Bond or LOTR or Star Wars….or old Star Trek). In the sequel, why not have Ilia’s theme, the Klingon theme (if appropriate), Life is a dream, or any other themes of bits of themes from past Trek – even if just a few bars.

33. StarFuryG7 - August 30, 2010

#1. Harry Ballz
“I like Scott Bakula as an actor and he seems like a genuinely nice person, but he WAS sadly miscast in Enterprise.”

Perhaps. But he wasn’t the biggest problem with “Enterprise”.

Berman and Braga were.

34. TyrannicalFascist - August 30, 2010

Absolutely get Bakula in the new one as a cameo.

This should have been done in the previous one.

35. ety3 - August 30, 2010

#32 –

You are very right. One need only watch the pilot episode and the launching of the Enterprise.

The scene should have been sweeping and majestic. Instead, we got quickly cut VFX shots and listless music that laid there like a sad rug.

36. StarFuryG7 - August 30, 2010

#2. robowarrior
“I think he should have a big role in the next movie. At least the same amount of screentime as Pike had. I’d be way more enthusiastic then.”

No –I’m inclined to be against even a cameo for Bakula in the next movie, and they probably can’t have both Greenwood as Pike and Bakula as Archer in it. Chances are there wouldn’t be enough screen time to do either character justice if they chose to try and ‘split the difference’.

37. NX-03 - August 30, 2010

25

You are, of course, 100% right but, and I have asked myself this on a few viewings, would it really have been that much of an ordeal to the production team to have had the little pre-titles scene correlate exactly with what had gone on before? Not that it ruins what is an brilliant movie, but just a little pre-titles nod to older fans – as soon as the big ol’ Star Trek logo had kicked in, they’d be free to do whatever- which they did…and it was awesome.

38. James Cannon - Runcorn Trekkie UK - August 30, 2010

New Quantum Leap movie premise:

Sam leaps into actor Scott Bakula who has to remove Berman from ST:E and make sure Manny Coto completes years 5,6 &7 before leaping home…..

:-)

39. JGLJR - August 30, 2010

For anyone that doesn’t own it already, I found ENT season 1 at Wal Mart for 20 bucks. Unfortunately, the rest of the series is still going for 50-60 bucks.

I had to chcek the price tag two or three times before heading to the counter, thinking it was a mistake.

They’re sold out online, but you may still be able to find it in store.

http://tinyurl.com/2dcbv4d

40. Alec - August 30, 2010

I agree with StarFuryG7 that Enterprise and Voyager were disappointing (to say the least!). But a cameo for Archer can’t be a bad idea, surely? At most, it can only be unnecessary: it can’t make or break the story. But it would be a nice link to prior Trek and a homage for the fans, wouldn’t it: in the same way that De’s cameo was in Farpoint for TNG. Furthermore, it’s very easy to put Archer in the sequel. Unlike most of the other, main characters such as Kirk or Picard, he hasn’t died in the future, nor yet to be born! To put Kirk or Picard et al in the sequel would take considerable effort and screen-time: not so with Archer. Besides, it seems that Bakula has some unfinished business with Trek; whereas, it seems as if Trek is closed book for many other Trek actors…

41. John Trumbull - August 30, 2010

No on an Archer cameo in the new movie. I love Scott Bakula, but Archer doesn’t mean a thing to the general public. People would just say, “Hey, what’s the guy from Quantum Leap doing there?”

42. Jeffery Wright - August 30, 2010

Hated QL, loved Enterprise.

Pre-Xindi = Wah! Enterprise is too much like Star Trek, nothing new!

Xindi story arc= Wah! Its too new and different from what we want in Trek!

Post Xindi-Hmm, I guess its not so awful.. hey! Where’d the show go?

Basically, from kids who only knew Deep Snore Nine and Star Trek: Lost In Space as “Star Trek”.

I agree with Scott, it would have been fun to get back to more Trek-ie episodes, but the whiners got their way, show cancelled, how to wrap it up quickly?

“These are the voyages” was the only way to do it right. Unless, someone has/had a better idea?

43. Geodesic - August 30, 2010

Based off of the events in Enterprise, there is no reason to not assume that in Star Trek ’09 timeline, T’Pol is alive and near Archer’s side.

44. Ben - August 30, 2010

dear writers/producers

Scott Bakula in Star Trek 2012 (as a good guy) – don’t mind if it’s a a one liner, him walking with Prothos in the background, a cameo or a larger role.

45. What is it with you? - August 30, 2010

Okay, I’ll say it. Are you guys really serious? Bakula before Shatner? Get real! If they are going to write an extensive cameo for anyone it will be Shatner, who (a) was Kirk, and (b) is hugely popular right now.

Hologram scene cut from the the first new-trek script, please…

46. Anthony Thompson - August 30, 2010

What’s with the hair?

47. Jordan - August 30, 2010

I think a T’Pol cameo would make more sense. And Archer could have another verbal cameo mentioning the admiral, or have a ship names the USS Archer or hell….. even USS Tucker.

48. Christopher Pike - August 30, 2010

If they make the Romulans the big-bad in the next film, they can can involve Scott in old age make-up as Admiral Archer in some way.

Maybe without, if Spock brings up some historical records of the Earth-Romulan War. Some brief background footage showing Archer aboard the NX-01 leading the armada and then cut to him signing the Federation charter.

49. Jordan - August 30, 2010

People, PORTHOS IS LONG DEAD. Dogs only live 20 or so years, do you really think that Porthos could live an extra 100+? Capt Archer just probably had Beagles all his life. They never said in the movie that the dog’s name was Porthos.

PS. Please stop suggesting having “Porthos” or another Beagle in the next movie, possibly getting de-materialized. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. :/

50. Jeffery Wright - August 30, 2010

25. Alec – August 30, 2010
Two points: first, put Bakula in the sequel in a cameo role; second, the JJ-verse is NOT the same as the Enterprise one!

[
The warp 5 project preceded the Nero time loop by almost 100 years
]

1) At the moment, the JJ-verse is very new and lacks a strong, visible connection to the established 50+ years of original canon.

[
Really? Look closer, it's a huge departure, ENT was more aligned, just the bridge alone...
]

2) Why then has the planet Delta Vega ‘moved’? Why has Kirk’s brother, no small character in Trek lore, ‘changed’ his name? Why, in such a short space of time, have the ships, weapons, etc (though not Engineering!) advanced so very much?

[
Thats Abrams flawed vision, DV is nowhere near Vulcan, he "forgot" about Sam Kirk, but the technology was pretty organic in its state of evolution, though
]

No, this is not the same time-line as Enterprise.

[
It is until the arrival of Nero.

Not to defend Abrams, but since the arrival and report of Nero, this likely altered Starfleet R&D which accelerated tech like weaponry.

I remember folks who didnt pay too much attention claim that the NX-01 was way more advanced than the NCC-1701, they were wrong, too.

The Abrams universe is all new, which means our beloved TNG characters might not even have/will be born. So in one movie, Abrams killed off all we know of TNG and after, and cemented Enterprise.

At least we know the Borg are still around.

]

51. desertrat - August 30, 2010

I’m seriously getting tired of the question being asked of any Star Trek alum: “Do you want to be in the sequel?”

Listen up folks, acting is nothing more than a job. Do you think any of these people would turn down a paycheck to crank out a few lines for J.J. Abrams? The answer is a sincere no.

Star Trek is nothing more than an acting role to many of these performers. They have an interest in feeding their families and paying their bills. Why in the heck would they immediately say they wouldn’t be in a major motion picture?

So to the people who run this site-please stop asking those insipid questions of these performers and then run the answer like headline news. They are going to give you the same answer time and time again.

52. Philip Dunlop - August 30, 2010

I was never a fan of Quantum Leap as a kid (they haven’t re-run it on any of the stations I get access to in Ireland in a long time), but if they did I think I’d give it a second look. I was ready to hate Bakula in Star Trek, but he did a really excellent job. He was naïve without being stupid. He was curious without being brash. And, at the end of the day, became one of the best characters in Enterprise, being a cross between Kirk, the action hero, and Picard, the diplomat. I never rated him as an actor, but I think he was excellent as the original Starfleet captain, and I think he actually brought a lot of himself into the roll. I would definitely like to see more of him on screen in Star Trek. It may not be a fifth series of Enterprise like we all want, but some way to make it happen would be a lot more fulfilling as, say, seeing Admiral Janeway.

As an aside, a reason I’m so eager to give Quantum Leap a second chance is not just because of Bakula, but also because of Dean Stockwell’s performances in Battlestar Galactica. In fact, he seemed to relish playing the villain so much, I think he’d be an amazing choice for a future Star Trek movie…

53. John - August 30, 2010

The only good thing about “Enterprise” series was the theme song.
end of story.

Let Archer character be, and in the archives .

Live long and Prosper peeps.

54. Philip Dunlop - August 30, 2010

Also, and apologies for making this a second post, but as much as I disagree with putting past Star Trek luminaries in cameo roles, I think it could actually work for Bakula. The precedence was set in the first movie after all. But he must be a fair age by then!

55. Jeffery Wright - August 30, 2010

Quick BTW:

Tech Imitates Trek… Again

http://yardale.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/tech-imitates-trek-again/

56. dmduncan - August 30, 2010

Joel McHale. If you put a handlebar mustache on him, paint a gap between his front teeth, and make him folically challenged, he would BE Harry Mudd.

That’s it! Joel McHale with the makeup would make a perfect Mudd. A skinnier Mudd, of course; a Mudd who does not yet consume far more calories than he burns.

57. PhilCollins - August 30, 2010

Scott Bakula is awesome. Archer and Enterprise were not.

58. Harry Ballz - August 30, 2010

#33 StarFuryG7 “biggest problem….Berman and Braga”

Hey, no argument there!

#51 desertrat “going to give you the same answer time and time again”

Everybody got THAT??!!

59. Viking - August 30, 2010

Yeah, I say give Bakula a cameo. In the pantheon of Trek captains, his bed got short-sheeted at the end of Season Four. Scotty is already on his bad side for beaming Porthos v4.0 into oblivion, so a one-off scene between the two would be a doable (and New Canon) carryover from the last movie. Besides, a few frames of film would be a nice way of Paramount to say that he wasn’t intended to be the runt of the Starfleet litter. Maybe Archer is walking one of the pups Porthos sired, bumps into Scotty, and Porthos v5.0 lifts a leg on Scotty’s boot. Archer just gives Scotty that ‘OK, now we’ve even’ look while Scotty squishes away, looking for another dry towel. ROTFLMAO

C’mon, Roberto, what’s one less battle explosion if it rights a wrong and still keeps the movie within the targeted running time? LOL

60. Thorny - August 30, 2010

42… To each his own. I’ve liked all the Treks, but I liked Enterprise the least. I blame that mostly on the writing/creative decisions. Why set a show at the dawn of the Federation and then go far out of your way to avoid telling stories about the dawn of the Federation? Instead, we got the “Temporal Cold War” (who the devil came up with THAT?) and stories that seemed very, very much like rejected Voyager scripts, with a whole bunch of new alien races no one had ever mentioned in the previous 400 hours of Trek. Wasn’t Enterprise supposed to show how all of those 400 hours came to be? Instead, we got Suliban, Xindi, and races Earth wasn’t supposed to meet until the TNG era… Ferengi and Borg.

Enterprise also had, in my humble opinion, the weakest casting in Trek history, including a badly miscast Mr. Bakula, who was outstanding on Quantum Leap but had little charisma and even less command presence on Enterprise. And Mr. Bakula was the BEST member of the cast. The other characters had bad portrayals, non-existent character development, or both.

I think it is very telling that _supporting_ DS9 characters like Garak, Dukat, Nog and Rom were more fleshed-out than most of the main characters on Enterprise. They actually seemed like real people. Can we say the same thing about Phlox, Reed or Mayweather?

61. Lt. Bailey - August 30, 2010

Any time they can add some thing from the TV even ENT would be great. I really enjoyed ENT it was different then the privous 3 shows that were all set in the same era. Only TOS and ENT were set in a dlfferent time. TNG, DS9 & VOY all were the same. Yes, different characters on different ships, but still in th same century.

62. New Horizon - August 30, 2010

@Roberto Orci …if you’re reading.

Please try to get a proper Enterprise TV movie or mini-series up and running to properly wrap up the series.

These are the voyages was not a good ending, and the show deserved better.

63. Red Dead Ryan - August 30, 2010

I would like to see Scott Bakula do a cameo as Admiral Archer in the sequel. What would be great would be something similar to Admiral McCoy’s visit aboard the Enterprise D during “Encounter At Farpoint”.
Archer can walk down a corridor with Scotty (after the engineer rescued the Admiral’s prized beagle) and give some advice. Archer can tell Scotty the importance of a good engineer and share some tips he learned from Trip Tucker.

Scott Bakula is a total class act. Especially after the fiasco that was (and still is) “These Are The Voyages…”.

64. Dalek - August 30, 2010

“And of course, since the events of Enterprise happened before Nero attacked the USS Kelvin and split the Trek timelines, all of Enterprise is in the same timeline as the new movie timeline.”

Not true. The moment the temporal cold war happened (from the first scene in Enterprise where the Suliban attack a crashed Klingon ship) it stopped being the Prime universe. From that event forward and the whole Xindi attacking earth stuff was part of a future war that did not occur in the timeline of the original series.

Perhaps there was a ship called Enterprise and a Captain called Archer, but he almost certainly did not have the same missions we saw in Enterprise. The butterfly effect of time travel would have sort to that.

65. mko - August 30, 2010

I thought ncc-1701 was launched the same year as Archer died.. oh wait that was another timeline

66. section9 - August 30, 2010

ENT was shortchanged by the catastrophic handling of the series by Brannan and Braga and the Xindi story arc, which killed the series.

Now, had they fast-forwarded it into what it became in Season 4, then transitioned into the Romulan War, that would have been a great contribution to Trek.

The Romulan War has never been adequately covered.

Were I JJ Abrams, I would do the Romulan War as a side project for television with parts of the ENT crew, call it “Kobayashi Maru” (not to steal from book of same name). Thus, NuTrek JJVerse is not violated while Trek canon in both universes is maintained.

67. section9 - August 30, 2010

Are we actually accepting the Temporal Cold War as canon?

Seriously?

68. Adam E - August 30, 2010

I would love to see Captain Archer again but he would have been 146 years old during the events to Star Trek 2009. So I have to vote no.

69. NX-03 - August 30, 2010

64

That fork in the timelines has never occured to me, I always see the major influence and change on the ‘pure’ TOS timeline’s history as First Contact. To me FC is ENT’s genesis.

70. Dalek - August 30, 2010

#69 NX-03

It’s interesting you should say that. There was an interview with Brannon Braga many years ago (or it might have been comments he said at a convention), and he said that the events of First Contact changed the timeline from what we always knew it as.

71. Corinthian7 - August 30, 2010

Come on Bob you know you want to write this scene even if it doesn’t end up filmed like your superbly scripted Shatner cameo!

72. StarFuryG7 - August 30, 2010

#59. Viking
“Yeah, I say give Bakula a cameo. In the pantheon of Trek captains, his bed got short-sheeted at the end of Season Four. Scotty is already on his bad side for beaming Porthos v4.0 into oblivion, so a one-off scene between the two would be a doable (and New Canon) carryover from the last movie. Besides, a few frames of film would be a nice way of Paramount to say that he wasn’t intended to be the runt of the Starfleet litter. Maybe Archer is walking one of the pups Porthos sired, bumps into Scotty, and Porthos v5.0 lifts a leg on Scotty’s boot. Archer just gives Scotty that ‘OK, now we’ve even’ look while Scotty squishes away, looking for another dry towel. ROTFLMAO”

For more on Porthos the First, read the end of the Novel Adaptation of ST09. :)

73. StarFuryG7 - August 30, 2010

60. Thorny
“42… To each his own. I’ve liked all the Treks, but I liked Enterprise the least. I blame that mostly on the writing/creative decisions. Why set a show at the dawn of the Federation and then go far out of your way to avoid telling stories about the dawn of the Federation? Instead, we got the “Temporal Cold War” (who the devil came up with THAT?) and stories that seemed very, very much like rejected Voyager scripts, with a whole bunch of new alien races no one had ever mentioned in the previous 400 hours of Trek.”

Okay, okay …I’m already sick! Must you continue to go on from there?

God, I hate Berman and Braga . . . especially Braga . . .

74. StarFuryG7 - August 30, 2010

67. section9
“Are we actually accepting the Temporal Cold War as canon?
Seriously?”

My thoughts too exactly. :::Sigh:::

75. StarFuryG7 - August 30, 2010

64. Dalek “The moment the temporal cold war happened (from the first scene in Enterprise where the Suliban attack a crashed Klingon ship) it stopped being the Prime universe. From that event forward and the whole Xindi attacking earth stuff was part of a future war that did not occur in the timeline of the original series.”

Agreed.

76. Corinthian7 - August 30, 2010

StarFury – it’s been clearly stated that Enterprise is intended to be the same timeline as TOS. You can nitpick it as much as you want but the whole point of episodes like Regeneration, These are the voyages and pretty much all of season 4 were designed to show this.

77. Phaser Guy - August 30, 2010

I know some Xindi helped Archer destroy the weapon, but that’s tiny compared to the rest of the culture that probably hates the fact the Xindi lost.

78. Torcflaed - August 30, 2010

In my opinion the timeline for the trek 09 did not actually diverge when the Romulan ship arrived and killed Kirk’s father it actually diverged in First Contact when next gen enterprise went back in time to prevent the Borg from changing the past.
In it the Borg kill a number of peaple involved in launching the ship and the next gen crew took there place, the entire event no matter how carefully handled by Picard and crew would still couse changes.
And sence the enterprise crew had to deal with the borg survivers that puts them in the same timeline as the new enterprise but not necesarilly in the timeline of the original series!

And while everyone is talking Archer, what I would like to see is a Camio with Phlox, maybe Kirk enters the Doctors office while he is having a subspace conversation with his fleet superior Admiral Dr Phlox or better yet he has a medical problem and calls Dr Phlox for a subspace consultation possably dealing with a medical problem first introduced in the Enterprise series.

79. Torcflaed - August 30, 2010

77 Phaser Guy
I know some Xindi helped Archer destroy the weapon, but that’s tiny compared to the rest of the culture that probably hates the fact the Xindi lost.

That may be true at first and some Xindi would always blame humans but when the spheres that were causing the altered space that was eating away at Xindi territory during the entire war were destroyed freeing all that lost territory I would think the majority of the Xindi might reconsider who was to blame for their problems.

80. Corinthian7 - August 30, 2010

Given that Bob has stated on numerous occasions that under the new team all time travel is going be based on current scientific understanding I guess we can assume that every trip back in time has resulted in the creation of a new timeline and that the shows have continued in each new reality only until the next temporal shenanigans. The only difference with the latest universe is that the changes are more striking. This fits in well with the TNG episode Parallels and also provides a nice explanation for all those canon mistakes we like to obsess over!

81. Torcflaed - August 30, 2010

Here’s a thought, do we know how long the Andorians live? How about a cameo with Shran?
if the federation includes the Andorians maybe admiral Shran and admiral Archer can inspect the repaired enterprise before turning it over to Kirk, a cameo where they actually tell Kirk the ship has passed inspection and as they walk away Admiral Shran can comment one how peculiar pink skin promotions are ;)

82. Torcflaed - August 30, 2010

80 Corinthian7
Given that Bob has stated on numerous occasions that under the new team all time travel is going be based on current scientific understanding I guess we can assume that every trip back in time has resulted in the creation of a new timeline and that the shows have continued in each new reality only until the next temporal shenanigans. The only difference with the latest universe is that the changes are more striking. This fits in well with the TNG episode Parallels and also provides a nice explanation for all those canon mistakes we like to obsess over!

Exactly, with every time travel event causing a different divergence but every divergent timeline containing some version of all known characters the new movies can not only have a new and different future but any canon mistakes are just a different reality

of course this means in one timeline briefly glimpsed by the next gen crew as they went back to assure First Contact every character we know and love has a fully Borg equivalent, so somewhere in alternate time there is a Borg cube with the entire Borg Enterprise crew going where no Borg has gone before ;)

83. cd - August 30, 2010

I had hoped Enterprise would have been given more of a chance, since it was getting better, and especially if the plans to upgrade Enterprise with a secondary hull were true, but it was probably too little too late and still too much B and B.
As far as Bakula goes, it would be nice to see Admiral Archer in a cameo getting his dog back. As far as it being Porthos, probably not (or at least, not the same one), but with that iguana pituitary gland he has now, you never know.
As far as Enterprise fitting in with canon, it appears to be part of the altered canon caused by ST: First Contact, and might very well be in both the NuTrek and prime (now altered) universe. I am of the opinion that the differences between the NuTrek universe and the prime universe are greater than can be explained by just the Kelvin incident; that they are not just different timelines but different universes altogether (not just a slight divergence but an alternative universe, kind of like the mirror universe or zombie universe in Marvel >.>& ). But that may be just my way of coping with the severe differences between NuTrek and prime. >;>}

84. section9 - August 30, 2010

#80-Okay, if that’s the case, how is Cawley going to get “his” Enterprise crew through Time Travel problems by doing that slingshot thing around the sun?

Physics? Pshaw! Creative scriptwriting! That’ll get us to Pandora and back!

Gotta hand it to Cawley. It’s like watching Elvis hold court on the Bridge.

85. Torcflaed - August 30, 2010

83 cd-August 30
it would be nice to see Admiral Archer in a cameo getting his dog back. As far as it being Porthos, probably not (or at least, not the same one), but with that iguana pituitary gland he has now, you never know.

Good point cd-August
who knows what lifespan that alian iguana had, maybe transplanting it’s pituitary made Porthos stop aging effectivly making him an immortal dog (theres been several immortals in the trek universe, why not a dog?) immortal that is untill a certain engeneer put him into an experimantal transporter.
and let me tell you if I had the same loyal dog for over 100 years I would get really mad at scotty too! ;)

86. Corinthian7 - August 30, 2010

84 I guess that in previous shows when the various crews have set out to repair the timeline that the new interpretation of this would be that they are actually creating a new reality as close as possible to the one they originated from. This is just my opinion based on comments that Bob has made on here so I’m probably way off the mark. On one hand Bob Orci has said that in the new Trek everything that has been portrayed on screen previously has led to the new timeline and on the other that time travel under his watch will be grounded in current theory meaning no slingshot etc. Maybe be Bob could share his views on how we as fans can reconcile all the contrasting approaches to time travel we’ve seen throughout Trek.

87. Losira - August 30, 2010

Scott was fabulous as Archer. Remember. Inspite of all training to see the improbeble he had to learn the hard way and trial and error his way to eventialy define a starship capt. He portraied this well. And I always thought that Scott belonged in the trek verse. Before he was cast. Yes let. Him be in the sequelm I can see him and Erica. Enjoying their reirement in rocking. Chairs seeing the brave new world they helped to create. As for porthos didn’t. Ensign sue snag him?

88. Justice Boy - August 30, 2010

Jonathan Archer was the President of the United Federation of Planets from 2184 to 2192. Would a former president go back to being an admiral?

I think the Admiral Archer that Scotty is refering to is Jonathan’s son or daughter.

89. Losira - August 30, 2010

Ps it would be nice to see Chelsea his real wife play Erica Hernendez. But it would be great to have Manny Coto step in sooner to have put Ent back on course! Through the Romulan wars and Beyond!

90. Jack2211 - August 30, 2010

88. Good point.

And, generally, can’t we just leave this all alone and let the writers write their movie? I know, you’d think I’d never been here before.

91. Gigastazio - August 30, 2010

I would much rather see a Le Cutest of Beagle cameo.

92. Torcflaed - August 30, 2010

86

The simplest way to reconcile it is every attempt to fix the timeline led to a divergence with the people trying to fix things ending in an alternate similar enough they may not notice the difference, or not notice it for a long time
If you think you fixed things you can have a theory that time can be fixed
Think of it like the theory or a flat earth, the earth did not pop into a sphere when the theory changed, our understanding changed

if you think about it, if you do believe every change makes a whole different timeline then there is still a reason to go back and change things, if you found yourself in a Borg universe would you not want to go back and change things so you could live in a non Borg universe even if you know very well it is not your original timeline?

93. bill hiro - August 30, 2010

Scott Bakula’s a great guy. He’s impossible to dislike, which is why he was made for TV stardom. He’s great to hang out with for an hour every week. I wish him well.

94. Justice Boy - August 30, 2010

Homer Simpson must ‘ve made a lot of universes in that Halloween episode when he went back in time with his toaster!

95. bill hiro - August 30, 2010

Stupid bug – you go squish now!

96. Dennis Bailey - August 30, 2010

Sure, put Archer in the next one – why not? :-)

And yeah, the only series that’s now reliably “canon” is Enterprise.

97. Pensive's Wetness - August 30, 2010

instead of all the sh*t piles that Sci-Fi makes… why cant they make a Trek -Movie-? or even mini-series? the actors are only what… 6 years older now? a ENT mini series, about, what else? the Rom war…

would be cool & make some cash for paramount without the big drama that a full length film might…

98. StarFuryG7 - August 30, 2010

76. Corinthian7
“StarFury – it’s been clearly stated that Enterprise is intended to be the same timeline as TOS. You can nitpick it as much as you want but the whole point of episodes like Regeneration, These are the voyages and pretty much all of season 4 were designed to show this.”

It’s not a matter of nitpicking per se, since ENT isn’t at all consistent with the original series, and that’s the problem. And it can be traced back to the opening scene of “Broken Bow” if one stops and thinks about it.

Now you can like it, and that’s fine, but the reality is also that the Xindi nonsense and the Temporal Cold War headache make clear that the timeline can’t exactly be viewed as “reliable” when compared to what is seen in TOS.

But if it makes you feel any better I will say that I tended to enjoy “Enterprise” more than “Voyager” despite its deficiencies and problems.

99. Capes - August 30, 2010

Folks cmon……

Canon is what you want it to be. Consider one example:

The City on the Edge of Forever changed the timeline from the TOS forward. We will now never know what derivatives of the timeline resulted from the Hobo who incinerated himself with McCoy’s phaser……..

So it is all in how you look at it.

And….I am the biggest nerd ever to be debating this point.

See you at Dragoncon….

100. CarlG - August 30, 2010

I don’t know about mis-cast, but Bakula (and everyone else on Enterprise) were certainly mis-written.

Both Archer the character and Bakula the actor deserve a chance with better writing.

101. CmdrR - August 30, 2010

So, in the 23rd Century, the phrase “Men of a Certain Age” refers to someone who’s 150 years old?

I like Scott. I think the whole ENT series ran out of steam early on. Prequels are like that. The idea is so tempting, but then you run into walls. It’s odd to watch familiar situations played out a century before you thought they were supposed to happen. It’s like hearing your grandparents talk about how they always dreamed of the internet. I don’t buy it.

Anyway, Scott’s got plenty of work and his wife’s got plenty of –

I’ll just stop there.

102. DonDonP1 - August 30, 2010

#4, yes, either that or ‘Enterprise’ may continue under Manny Coto, or maybe under both J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot and Manny Coto Productions in association with CBS Television Studios.

103. Harry Ballz - August 30, 2010

99

A long time ago someone postulated that the hobo killed in COTEOF was, in fact, Gene Roddenberry’s father. By killing him, Gene was never born and therefore never invented Star Trek. That’s why, in Kirk, Spock and McCoy’s world, the fiction of Trek doesn’t exist.

In simple terms, this is why, when they came back to 1980′s San Francisco, nobody on the street pointed at them and yelled, “holy crap! it’s the crew of the Enterprise!”

104. Red Dead Ryan - August 30, 2010

“Enterprise” isn’t coming back. Not on television and definitely not on the big screen. There also will never be any direct-to-dvd movies. Doesn’t matter whether we like the show or not, it all comes down to the bottom line. There is no reason for CBS to spend money on something that only the diehards want. The show wasn’t profitable the first time around and there is no evidence that the show’s resurrection would make money and get high enough ratings for the network to take the gamble. I like the show a lot and really wanted a fifth season, but it wasn’t to be.

At least we have Pocket Books to satisfy our hunger for stories set in the Mirror Universe and during the Romulan War.

Hopefully, IDW follows suit. There are a lot of stories that can be told featuring the crew of “Enterprise”.

105. Harry Ballz - August 30, 2010

Hmmmmmm, just an addendum to my last post. Gene Roddenberry was born in 1921, so his father being killed in 1930 doesn’t mean he wasn’t born. Now that I think about it, the theory was that with Gene’s father being killed when he was 9 meant that Gene had a different history growing up (just like the new Jim Kirk), where he was never a cop with LAPD and never wrote scripts for Hollywood.

M’yeah, that was it.

106. Capes - August 30, 2010

M’yeah……..that’s the ticket!

107. StarFuryG7 - August 30, 2010

#101. CmdrR
“So, in the 23rd Century, the phrase “Men of a Certain Age” refers to someone who’s 150 years old?”

Yes, apparently –although a log entry cameo could have otherwise worked and actually would have made some sense.

108. Red Dead Ryan - August 30, 2010

103

“In simple terms, this is why, when they came back to 1980′s San Francisco, nobody on the street pointed at them and yelled, “holy crap! it’s the crew of the Enterprise!” ”

Or it could be that Kirk and co. were able to “blend in” successfully purely by accident. Judging by what Shatner wore in the film (Red jacket and pants, pink shirt) and Nimoy dressing like he just got out of the shower it would be easy to believe they were native 1986 San Franciscans!

109. Oregon Trek Geek - August 30, 2010

Wasn’t Quantum Leap going to make a comeback? I remember hearing that about a year or so ago….

110. Trekprincess - August 30, 2010

The City on the edge of forever is a classic brilliant TOS episode no I wouldn’t mind Admiral Archer making a cameo or substanial role but will it get in the way:0/

111. JohnWA - August 30, 2010

108-

Californians are willing to forgive almost any fashion faux pas. They even did a little in-joke about this on Voyager. After the crew got a little taste of Santa Monica in the 1990s, Tuvok observed that they could’ve just beamed down in their Starfleet uniforms because no one would have noticed.

112. Jordan - August 30, 2010

78.

Except Archer and Hoshi’s personnel files were in the Defiant’s records. That kind of confirms the continuity. And there is the TNG connection.

113. Khan was Framed! - August 30, 2010

It was just so close!

If this show had started with a season as strong as season four, we’d still be watching it today!

I hope instead of a cameo, we get a Romulan War mini-series!

Enterprise deserves a better sign off!

114. OneBuckFilms - August 30, 2010

32 – The lack of themes after TOS to me is not an oversite, but was very smart.

TMP, TNG and TWOK themes were much later in the lives of our crew, and in another reality.

The only theme that was appropriate for resurrection was, quite frankly, the TOS theme.

Why would we hear the TMP theme? Or anything from TNG (78 years after TWOK)? I love these themes and scores, but franky, they don’t fit.

115. Matthias Wieprecht - August 30, 2010

In my opinion, Star Trek was always succesful, when it went into unconventional directions. The problem is, Fans and Paramount either, did belief in conservative ideas. The collision of both killed ENT and the whole franchise for a while. ENT is the only series, existing in both dimensions, the Roddenberry / Berman – dimension AND the JJAbrams – dimension. As all the other series before also ENT became much better after three seasons. The fourth season is maybe the best Trek ever. Star Trek is not back! It is living, but it is not back. It could be back, if they would – for instance – show us the rising of the Federation with more ENT – seasons. Those could bring together the old and the new fans as much as the old and the new dimension. A cameo for Jonathan Archer or his dog… well, not bad, but they deserve it better. You are invited to sign me peition on my website http://www.trekpower.org or one of the other petitions or just to write to Paramount. Star Trek always showed us, it is possible to make your dreams come true. It is possible to move even such a big mountain as the one of the Paramount sign, if you really belief in a new series like this. Thank you!

116. Buzz Cagney - August 30, 2010

A very definite no thanks from me.
I’d rather see Klingons and Borg I think. And I’m as set against those as I could be!

117. chrisfawkes.com - August 31, 2010

I agree with you Harry on post 1.

118. Emmes - August 31, 2010

I want new episodes of TNG, DS9 and ENT! (Voyager never really clicked with me for some reason).

But that will never happen.. hope I get old enough that I get Alzheimer. That way everything will be new again ;-)

119. Harry Ballz - August 31, 2010

Thanks, Chris!

120. Cheve - August 31, 2010

While I voted yes for a part in the movie out of pure fandom, the truth is that the only two characters that could be in the movie with a real part without having to change them (with 180 years you are not the same energetic person, you know…) would be T’Pol and maybe Phlox.

If the vulcan situation is dealt with even in the slightest manner, it is mandatory to show T’Pol. She can even look the same and noone would argue a bit about it.

In fact, it is a real pity that she wasn’t involved as a cameo during the vulcan part in 2009′s movie.

I do really hope they’ll seriously consider showing her. It would be a very good way to continue the tie up with the new universe and the classic one. Enterprise was involved with TNG (Through the borg episode and Cochrane’s cameo) and with TOS (Through the mirror episodes and the consoles of the vulcan renegades episode). Simply showing T’pol with other vulcans, or making it so her is the one talking with Spock about the Vulcan situation if any scene in that matter is planned, wouldn’t affect the plot, wouldn’t distract and would mean a lot to every fan.

More so: If any kind of derivated novel is planning to show old Spock rebuilding Vulcan, a main and important involvement of T’Pol is mandatory.

121. Cheve - August 31, 2010

>Alec – August 30, 2010
>Two points: first, put Bakula in the sequel in a cameo role; second, the JJ->verse is NOT the same as the Enterprise one!

It absolutely is. What is arguable is if Enterprise is the same universe as TOS.

In First contact, the main assistant of Cochrane spends half a movie running up and down through the Enterprise E. This doesn’t give her understanding of that century’s technology, but it is evident that, when she later participates in the design of what ends up as the NX-01 controls, she applies Lcars inspired interfaces instead of vulcan controls as seen in TOS.

The movie First Contact already alters the past driving into why Enterprise looks more advanced than TOS (It is because the interfaces are better and inspired in the ENT-E, not because the technology is better), and then Nero arrives and changes things even more, but the Ent 1701 in the future of Enterprise was already going to look more user-friendly on Enterprise’s timeline even without the Kelvin’s telemetry of the Narada.

122. Corinthian7 - August 31, 2010

98# StarFuryG7

I’m not blind to Enteprise’s faults, I agree with a lot of what your saying about the show. However it is a matter of record that it’s creators have stated that it’s intended to be viewed as the history of TOS and not an alternative reality. I’ll concede that the Klingon first contact depicted in Broken Bow hardly seemed the disaster McCoy described it as and is certainly not how I envisaged the incident tbut at the same time it doesn’t directly contradict anything. Likewise the same can be said about the Xindi and TCW arcs. I actually enjoyed the Xindi arc and was glad to see them doing something different after the first 2 seasons which I found derivative, the TCW on the other hand I could have done without.

A few of you have mentioned that Archer was supposed to have died on the day the TOS Enteprise launched. I believe that when MU episode that feature the crew bios aired that one of the producers ( possibly Andre Bormanis?) said that they should not be treated as canon and that future writers should not be restricted by this as It was just a little treat for fans so effectively no different than the various in jokes that have appeared on displays throughout the run of Star Trek. In fact if we were to treat this literally then it has already been contradicted by the last movie as in the original timeline the Enterprise would have launched earlier! Therefore the only barrierto an Archer cameo would be what Read Dead Ryan said above i.e aside from the die hard fans the show just doesn’t have a following. Bob Orci through the fans a bone by getting an Enterprise reference into the last movie but a filmed cameo may be considered counter productive to making the franchise accessible to the mainstream.

123. Trekprincess - August 31, 2010

I want a classic style kind of TOS story with loads of references
to past trek :0)

124. Paulaner - August 31, 2010

A totally new original story, with new faces, please. Don’t fall into the trap of other major franchises, where heroes and villains are always the same, again and again.

125. Lope de Aguirre - August 31, 2010

A cameo of T’Pol would be much easier/satisfying, wouldn’t it?

But I have nothing against a well done Archer cameo.

126. Chris Pike - August 31, 2010

121. Cheve – August 31, 2010

good points…AND..

“And of course, since the events of Enterprise happened before Nero attacked the USS Kelvin and split the Trek timelines, all of Enterprise is in the same timeline as the new movie timeline” …but is it?

also ther’s the fact that in the new-neverse, it may very well be that McCoy, Spock and Kirk DO NOT encounter the Guardian, nor, therefore, go back to 1930′s Earth changing that history in some small but very significant butterfly effect way…(opportunity for Bob Orci to write something clever in here maybe??) I would conjecture that the pre Nero Kelvin is certainly not of the TOS universe anyway!

127. Chris Pike - August 31, 2010

sorry 99 just noticed you said the same as my 126…but that demonstates it is a point worth making if others think the same

128. Cheve - August 31, 2010

126. Chris Pike – August 31, 2010

“…but is it?”

Yes. Scotty beamed Archer’s dog away, and couldn’t beam him back.

(And the Kelvin insides looked a lot like an advanced NX-01)

129. Adam C - August 31, 2010

Scott Bakula is a great actor and i prey they find a way to continue quantum leap with him

130. Damian - August 31, 2010

I know some have said, how can you want a Bakula cameo and not a Shatner cameo. The simple reason is Star Trek (2009) established Archer is still alive, very old but alive. Make up effects can achieve the desired age (ala McCoy in TNG). It could be a small, simple role and have no effect on the story. It would be a simple nod to hardcore fans. Non fans would not give it a second thought. They would simply see an old Admiral sending the Enterprise on her way, or something similar.

To get Shatner in the movie would require an extensive backstory to explain why he is there. It should be clear to anyone not living in a cave that Shatner would only accept a substantial role and as Captain Kirk. He has made statements in the past he does not want a cameo, and he wants to be James T Kirk. Shatner would be instantly recognizable and would distract from whatever story they want to tell. He would have to be the story.

Bakula has already made statements that he would accept a small cameo role and as I mentioned before, his presence would have absolutely no effect on their story.

131. BRT - August 31, 2010

“no” is not a valid poll answer?

132. Bryan - August 31, 2010

I’ve always had a real difficult time dealing with the whole “Admiral Archer’s Beagle” Line. The events of Enterprise are 100 years prior to Kirk and crew so how it’s definately not Porthos, they’re referring to and Archer would have been extremely old by then. Not saying it’s not possible – they’ve had other characters last a long time (Like McCoy) but that was also 23rd/24th century medicine… not mid 22nd century medicine.. think about it, Archer’s time was brand new to things like Warp 5 and Transporters.

133. Travis W. Pearsall - August 31, 2010

If Admiral Archer is ” alive ” during this timeframe… hes well over 120 years old. it says that Archer becomes President of the United Federation of Planets and tours the original Enterprise ( primetime line ) and dies in his sleep the next night. So lets see here…. Archer’s last captinacy was 2160… Nero came thru 2233… and the Enterprise ( orginial series launched 2245 )…. But the alt. version Enterprise was launched 2258 ( reverse engineering ). I would love to see Archer in the sequel but hes going to be a very…very old man. As for T’pol the last i heard was that she still was part of Starfleet/Federation… vulcans do live to 200 years old and she did tell trip in 2158 that she was 66 at the time… so she would be 166 years old… i do believe she was either on earth or she got out just in time when nero destoryed vulcan….Either was Archer and T’Pol are a MUST in the sequel… i cant wait. BTW… its looking more that KAHN will be in the sequel from my sources :)

134. Horatio - August 31, 2010

#1. I agree. I like Scott Bakula but I always had problems with him as Archer. Its a preference thing, I guess.

By the way Scott, you’re too old now for that hair style.

135. Dac - August 31, 2010

I miss Enterprise. A lot. Any more of it in some form or another is good seeing as there arent even any comic books based on it! The show really hit its stride in season 4, just like Deep Space Nine did and so did Voyager. It’s a damn shame we never got to see the Romulan War.

Plus, I really do feel the show has gained a lot of fans since its initial airing. Like the original Star Trek, it did poorly in its initial ratings but through reruns and…the mellowing shall we say of Trek fans It’s really gotten some support in recent years. Im not saying a comeback would be a ratings spectacular, but I certainly feel it would be higher than it ever was while the show was on the air, especially if you take into account new technologies and digital streaming as views, because those are things tech savvy Star Trek fans are more likely to do.

136. Lore - August 31, 2010

#1 & #58 Harry, I think casting SB was purposfully done because with 17 years of Trek on TV (in addition to all the movies made), an actor known in the science fiction universe would draw more viewers than an unknown in a risky pre-quel tv series. Actually he was the reason I tuned in the first time. I mean, I like that ship! You know, it was exciting!

137. Lore - August 31, 2010

#118 I know your joking but don’t wish for that. You would forget Trek altogether.

138. Losira - August 31, 2010

The time lines aside I would and so would everyone else see the Romulan Wars miniseries. Before the actors realy become and part of this collection. Leave it to Manny Coto and Rod Jr. Oversite by JJ ! But ditch the finaly of Ent it did not happen right? Trip is alive and well married to T’Pol having Babies….the old fashioned way! After the war! And yes T’Pol was on Earth when Vulcan was done in. A

139. The Unknown Poster - August 31, 2010

Interesting idea but 180 year old Admiral Archer? Come on….that’s just ridiculous. Unless Scotty also put him through the Transporter for about 100 years like he would later do to himself.

140. Sid - August 31, 2010

Scott Bakula is the man. Obviously a substantial role is out of the question, but a cameo by President Archer, maybe with a squint at Scotty, would be a perfect touch.

141. JWWright - August 31, 2010

67. section9 – August 30, 2010
Are we actually accepting the Temporal Cold War as canon?

Seriously?

—-

You bet it is, it was first mentioned during TNG, and arguably, goes back to the Gary7 episode in TOS.

142. Holger - August 31, 2010

I never understood why quite a number of fans were so hostile against Archer/Bakula during the Enterprise run and afterwards. I think he was a great captain of the Enterprise, the very first one.
I would like to watch Bakula reprise that role.

143. Harry Ballz - August 31, 2010

#120 Cheve “a main and important involvement of T’Pol is mandatory”

Hey, I didn’t know Jolene Blalock’s agent posts on this site!?

144. Danpaine - August 31, 2010

In my humble opinion, of course….The target audience B. Orci and Co. are aiming for, $ HAVE $ to aim for to attend these films don’t know and couldn’t care less who Archer, or T’Pol are. Sure, they’ve heard of Spock and Kirk.

But Neelix? Nog? Odo? That Andorian guy from Enterprise? Really?

C’mon people, give me a break. I’m an oldtime fan (of all series, with exceptions) myself. But Archer, or his son or whatever, was referenced in the last one. It was a cute little addition for us core fans. Take that tidbit and run.

The writers did an *excellent* job throwing in nods to the past in the last film, and I’m certain they’ll do the same this time.

I do wish that Shatner hologram scene had made it in 09′, though. Damn.

145. Buzz Cagney - August 31, 2010

#16 i suspect you would have been one of the very few that got it I’m afraid.

I felt Trek ’09 was sullied by even mentioning Archer, I honestly do. I inwardly groaned and the needlessness of it.

And I’m very much with the above poster that says you can’t have Bakula before Shatner. You just can’t.

146. AJ - August 31, 2010

Bakula played Archer so straight-laced and constipated. And I remember when they announced the Xindi arc, it was said that they were going to show him become unhinged and more violent, which made the character even more depressing.

It’s the trap of ‘when the ratings flop, get gritty,’ and it signed the death warrant for the show, despite the great 4th season.

147. Tim - August 31, 2010

I like Scott Bakula, and think it could work as a cameo in the new movie. He was already referenced in STAR TREK ’09, and they could put him in the film in such a way that you don’t need to have watched ENTERPRISE to “get it” so to speak.

I do have a problem with some on this forum who talk about certain series of STAR TREK being a failure. It bugs me when I hear people talk about the ‘failure’ that was STAR TREK: VOYAGER. The series routinely pulled in more viewers than DS9, and carried enough viewers to go 7 seasons! If that is considered a failure, then the original series, with only 3 seasons (four if you count animated) was a failure as well. Please, please don’t count one of the series as a failure, just because it’s not your favorite. Respect that many, many people on this forum DO like ENTERPRISE and VOYAGER.

148. Damian - August 31, 2010

To those who wanted to see the Romulan War on screen, your best hope is to check out the relaunch novels for Enterprise. A worthy endeavor and Michael Martin has even tried to incorporate explanations why the original series seemed to be less advanced than it should have been from the time of Enterprise. Actually, pretty good work and an inkling of what season 5 could have been. (Also former editor Margaret Clark will have my eternal gratitude if for no other reason than approving the undoing of the abortion that “These are the Voyages…” was. Novels rarely contradict things on screen, but this was one time when it was welcome).

I have to laugh at those who complained that the NX-01 looked more advanced thant the NCC-1701. What do you expect? I will always love the original series above all else, but come on. The set design was done in 1964 to 1969. How would you make the NX-01 look less advanced. Technology already has surpassed much of what was displayed back then. I was watching the DVD commentary and Herman Zimmerman went to great lengths to try to makes the NX-01 consistent. You could tell he struggled at times to try to make it less advanced then the 1701 without making it look ridiculous (hence, the ship is much smaller, it had more of a submarine feel, could only do warp 5, primitive transporter, no force fields, no shields, less advanced weaponry).

I will always have a soft spot for Enterprise. It tried to establish a foundation for all the future shows, including the original series and TNG. It seems to be an easy one for people to bash because of it’s short run, but I think season 4 really was getting it on solid footing. Had it gone on for it’s intended 7 year run with Manny Coto at the helm, I think it would have done Star Trek fans proud. I’ll give Berman credit for knowing the ship was running aground and trying to find the right person (Coto) to right the ship.

149. Buzz Cagney - August 31, 2010

#147 its a bit naive of you to believe people are going to put aside their own dislikes because some others have a different opinion.
The reason I came on here to voice my opinion- namely, no thanks to Archer- was because there were others that had another view on it.
On the very slim chance that anything we say on here makes any difference I don’t want to give tptb the view that we are all in total favour of Bakula being in it.

150. Damian - August 31, 2010

There really is not comparison to having a cameo by Bakula and an appearance by Shatner. It’s a hell of a lot easier to have a brief Bakula cameo that would have no influence on your story than Shatner. The fans by and large (at least according to the poll) want a simple cameo, a nod to prior Star Trek that to non fans would have no meaning or impact. Shatner’s appearance in the movie would be Earth shattering. It would most definetly have an impact on the story. He would not be content with a short cameo role. I don’t understand what some people do not get about it. Based on Shatner’s own statements coming out of his own mouth, he…would…not….want…a…cameo…role. He is not going to be content to make a short scene with a message to his younger self, or be some family member of Pine’s Kirk. He would want to be Kirk himself with a substantive part.

There is no comparison between having Shatner or Bakula. Simply put, Shatner would have a major impact on the next movie if he was in it, for better or worse. Bakula would not (unless the writers wanted him to, which I doubt). Bakula has already said he would do a cameo in another article. There is no disrespect of Shatner here. It’s simply a matter that, at least for me, I want to see the crew flourish on their own with their own adventure. Shatner would overshadow that, Bakula would not. I believe that it is because a Bakula cameo would not disrupt the story while at the same time giving a nod to older fans that some fans want it. It’s a matter of degree of impact each would have.

Put it another way, Shatner being in the movie would be a starring role in the beginning credits (if they still had them) as a special guest star. Bakula would be at the bottom of the ending credits (no disrespect to Bakula, just the influence of any likely role).

151. Damian - August 31, 2010

149–I think what 147 was getting at was something that sometimes bugs me as well. I’m ok that there are fans of particular series or movies, and not of the others (I know people who only like DS9 for example). It’s when those who do not like a particular show (like Enterprise) cross the line into almost being insulting of those that do, as if because I liked Enterprise, Voyager, the original series, or Star Trek V, that I am some kind of moron. This also works in reverse. If someone does not like one of the shows, they should be respected as well.

NOTE: This is not directed at Buzz Cagney, just a general statement about how I took what Tim was trying to get at.

152. Desstruxion - August 31, 2010

STAR TREK 2 (er I mean 12 or something): The Wrath of Porthos

Porthos comes back assimilated by the borg. “We are the Borg…..your ankles will be pissed upon……resistance is futile!”

153. Valenti - August 31, 2010

^ also known as Le Cutest of Borg =P

Anyway, an Archer cameo would be rather awesome.

154. vjeko1701 - August 31, 2010

Do you know that he is of Croatian descent?

155. Tommunist - August 31, 2010

Star Trek films have a history of little cameos, so Archer appearing wouldn’t be bad, if it’s a small throwaway scene. It appeals to the hardcore Trek fan, and at most, may be a curiousity to the casual filmgoer.
The new crew needs to stand on their own, storywise, and until the Shat issue is resolved (either through his appearance in the film or his passing) this will remain a sensitive issue for geeks (myself included) arguing over different interpretations of a fictional work!

156. The Red Shirt Diaries - August 31, 2010

I was a HUGE fan of Quantum Leap and hope Mr. Bakula gets to be Mr. Beckett again.
But as far as a Star Trek cameo, forget Archer! GET THE SHAT in one last time (preferrably with Mr. Nimoy to give these two icons the proper sendoff that Generations did not!).
Would you rather be in a packed theater and see Kirk Prime or Archer make an appearance?
The general, non-trek fan, movie goers would be thrilled to see Shatner but would not care or have the slightest clue if they saw Archer.
I dare to say that Mr. Shatner may be at the peak of his career at 79 years young. He is a cultural icon and recognized by nearly 100% of the public as Captain Kirk.
I don’t think many of the non-trek fan public would have any idea who Mr. Bakula was and certainly have never heard of Captain Archer.
I know he died in Generations…blah, blah. If Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman can write a resurrection for Optimus Prime they can also write one for Kirk Prime without distracting from the new cast and main story.

157. TomBot3000 - August 31, 2010

At this point, I doubt most casual filmgoers would identify Bakula as Archer or recognize him from Quantum Leap, so it would mostly be a paycheck for him & some fodder for the geeks. Enterprise suffered a lot of indignity based on breaking forms that didn’t need breaking while still somehow carrying forth the staleness that Voyager had begun. Hey, let’s call it ENTERPRISE, no need for Star Trek in the title… Hey, let’s have a crap softrock wannbe Rod Stewart song instead of an orchestral theme… Hey, let’s have a hot Vulcan… and bland as 2 by 4′s characters. It got way better towards the end, and I don’t blame the actors at all. I never had much problem with the design, I understand old school TOS seems ridiculous to some these days but it was the wheel. You make a better wheel, you dress it up fancy, etc. but it’s still a wheel.

158. Damian - August 31, 2010

156 & 157–I think you made my point exactly. I want to see the new crew stand on their own. They are great actors and deserve a chance to show what they can do without comparisons with the original actors. A Bakula cameo would really only have meaning for fans of the show. Everyone else would just see an old admiral giving his blessing, or whatever. Shatner being in the movie would completely overshadow the cast, That is just the kind of actor he is, not slamming him. They needed Nimoy to tie into canon, and his style of acting is much different that Shatner. He was there, but not shoved down your throat.

I loved William Shatner as Captain Kirk. But I just think this new cast has done a great job. They deserve the chance to sprout their wings (much like TNG crew had with First Contact). If Shatner was in it, that is what everyone would be talking about, not “Gee, Chris Pine really did a good job as Captain Kirk.”

159. roy - August 31, 2010

121. The movie doesn’t alter the past as to why the tv series Enterprise ship looked better and more advanced than the TOS Enterprise. What really made the difference is that Paramount spent a little bit of money into making the tv series Enterprise prop ship look better than what had been made for TOS and quite rightly so.

160. cugel the clever - August 31, 2010

I’m surprised that Orci knows so little about the Star Trek universe timeline.

Archer commanded the Enterprise starting from 2151. He was at least in his mid-30′s, more likely in his mid-40′s, at this time. The events of Star Trek 2009 happened in 2258. This means that the “Admiral Archer” referenced by Scotty in Star Trek 2009 would have to be 140 years old or more! And, there’s no way that the Porthos that Scotty vaporized could have been Archer’s original pet – he must have been many generations later. I don’t believe that any of the Star Trek canon has established that average human lifespan has doubled in the 23rd century or that future canines can live to be over 100 years old!

That was a sloppy bit of writing and canon-bending in the film.

161. Tommunist - August 31, 2010

@160 The age is plausible. And nobody said it was Porthos. So what canon was bent? What writing was sloppy? Why am I responding to this?

162. Zebonka - August 31, 2010

I do not think the worst show should be represented at all on the big screen.

163. cugel the clever - August 31, 2010

@161

140 years old is plausible? Maybe for a Vulcan, not for a human.

Canon was bent because Archer couldn’t still be alive in 2258 (let alone in Starfleet) and sloppy writing because with 4 supposed ST experts in the “supreme court”, one of them should have picked up this fault in the script.

I don’t know why you bothered responding because your response is idiotic.

164. grigori - August 31, 2010

Rather than see a doddering old Archer–played by Bak or other–it would be a cute running joke to refer back to the estimable Admiral Archer and/or his prize beagles now and again.

165. grigori - August 31, 2010

PS ACK Quantum Leap re-boot–sorry, they’re just gonna screw it up. Jumping on the re-boot Muppet Babies-version-of-characters-bandwagon.
If they’re not gonna resolve the original show–and a re-boot has no reason to–what’s the point?

166. Green-Blooded-Bastard - August 31, 2010

Hell YES to Bakula in the next ST picture! I could give a rats ass about canon. It’s a frikkin TV show, nothing more. I wanna be entertained and have a good time. If you’re going to pick apart something like a cute reference to Archer in a film and get all bent out of shape due to “time line” this and “canon” that, man, stay home. Live in your world where the only Trek is Shatner, it’s still late 1960′s and everything is perfect.

Party poopers.

167. Damian - August 31, 2010

#161–Orci has acknowledged that Archer would be 140 years old. Canon has established that in the original timeline, he lived to see the NCC-1701 launched before dying (around 2245). Obviously, this movie takes place about 10 years later. They took some liberty here with him still being alive. But Nero’s incursion was 2233 and everything after that was changed. Humans can be long lived in the Star Trek world (McCoy in TNG). A 161 said about the Beagle, no one ever said it was Porthos. I think it is safe to assume it is a different beagle. Or do we need Bob Orci to spoon feed us here and say on the record it is not Porthos?

I am all for canon, and did not like some of the liberties they took in Star Trek (2009). But I have to agree with 166 just a bit. The most we are talking about is an Archer cameo. Are Enterprise haters really going to get all bent out of shape over a cameo by Scott Bakula? Are you really going to stay home when the next movie comes out because Bakula might be in it for 2 minutes? Give us Enterprise fans our chance to say a proper farewell to Archer and we’ll move on. That’s really all we are asking for.

168. Torcflaed - August 31, 2010

there are peaple who live to se 120 now or even more, not in very good condition but rarely it happens, with more advanced medicine I could see a 140 year old arther still serving as admiral, after all you cn inspect a ship and crew and do paperwork form a wheelchair as well as anyone else can.
as for shatner, forget brinking him in as Kirk, that simply makes no sense, on the other hand he could ba cast as Kirks uncle? he could even have a small but substantual and even reacuring role as one of Kirks family

169. Robofuzz - August 31, 2010

I’d be fine if someone went back in time and erased Enterprise completely from existence.

170. Lore - August 31, 2010

#166 You forgot to tell them to stay in their parents basement. Amen, I could not agree more.

171. trek - August 31, 2010

Wig = fail!!!

172. Diggin' up Bones - August 31, 2010

Wasn’t there a big fiery looking planet visible from Vulcan during the Kholinar scene in ST:TMP? What happened to that? Maybe it was Delta Vega. Maybe a comet hits it later and splits it open and lets its lava out. Maybe Starfleet mapped and named planets in a different pattern after the Nero thing, so the old Delta Vega out by the edge of the galaxy has a different name in the JJ-verse. I will, at some point, work all of these discrepancies out, it’s part of the fun of Star Trek. By the way, Kirk’s brother was always named George. Only Kirk called him Sam. But that was in the original universe.

173. Tommunist - August 31, 2010

@172 The Director’s Cut of TMP showed a more traditional Vulcan sky. Spock has previously said Vulcan had no moon, but there was a big old planet or moon in Vulcan’s sky in TMP. EIther way, Delta Vega being near Vulcan is a stretch, if you consider the second TOS pilot.
And I directed my fun diatribe at @161 (me!), when it should have been 160, but who I at least named in the post. However, it does add the context needed. I also considered leaving purposely wrong spelling and grammar errors, to see if that could raise cugel’s blood pressure. So I present it here:
“Don’t loose your head over these finer points, cuge! There in charge of teh on screen franchise, rather then you. Its not fair, but your being a dork about it!”
:D

174. number6 - August 31, 2010

Maybe JJ and Co can tell us who Future Guy is.

175. StarFuryG7 - August 31, 2010

133. Travis W. Pearsall
“If Admiral Archer is ‘ alive ‘ during this timeframe… hes well over 120 years old.”

It just goes to show that his character never should have been mentioned in the last movie. Perhaps people would have written it off as Archer’s grandson, who becomes an Admiral, but Scotty talking about his prized Beagle, Porthos, well, it just goes to show that someone hadn’t been paying very close attention to matters before they jumped on board to write a script.

176. Tommunist - August 31, 2010

StarFuryG7: Scotty never mentioned the dog’s name. I imagine Archer had many beagles over his lifetime, or maybe he just cloned the little mongrel! Porthos was the name of one of The Three Musketeers, so he probably planned on owning at least two more dogs in his lifetime!

His name mention in the film doesn’t take away anything from the film! And if the dog materialized on the ship at the end of the film as it happened in one version of the script, the payoff would’ve been there for all viewers, not just those obsessed with the minutia of Trek as we!
Do you think they should have had meetings with Paramount over this? A fan vote, perhaps? Does this ruin your appreciation (if any) for the film? Or was this the deal breaker that made you storm out of the theater?

In any event, good chance Archer WON’T be in the next film, because they’ll be working on a convoluted way to bring Shatner in somehow, so we have what we have. Hopefully, Pike will have a decent role in the film, as he can provide a father/mentor figure that this Kirk never had (in this alternate timeline).

Bakula seems like a good egg, and pretty much all the Trek alumni interviewed say they wouldn’t mind returning to their roles in one way or another, or to the franchise in general. I don’t think Bakula’s hurting for money, so if this doesn’t happen, he won’t lose sleep over it…

177. StarFuryG7 - August 31, 2010

176. Tommunist
“Scotty never mentioned the dog’s name. I imagine Archer had many beagles over his lifetime, or maybe he just cloned the little mongrel!”

It’s safe to assume that he was probably Porthos version 11 or 12, perhaps from the same line. Or maybe cloned, although I’m inclined to doubt Archer would have went that route.

“And if the dog materialized on the ship at the end of the film as it happened in one version of the script, the payoff would’ve been there for all viewers, not just those obsessed with the minutia of Trek as we!”

It’s in the novelization.

“Do you think they should have had meetings with Paramount over this? A fan vote, perhaps? Does this ruin your appreciation (if any) for the film? Or was this the deal breaker that made you storm out of the theater?”

I felt it was a name-drop we didn’t need, especially as it didn’t seem to fit. It also had me thinking that someone hadn’t been playing close attention to things when they decided to write that into the script.

178. Damian - September 1, 2010

172–Some of the novels noted that Vulcan had a much larger twin planet names T’Khut. If I remember correctly, it was mentioned in the novelization for TMP. A few other novels made note of it too. It was probably dropped in the directors cut because Vulcan was seen many times in the original series, the movies, the Next Generation and Enterprise and never once did it have this other planet. Orci had said they moved Delta Vega in an interview to suit their purposes. I agree, it seemed a silly move that just caused frustration among hard core fans. In the original series, near the edge of the galaxy, and far from any populated areas of the Federation. I think it was done just so they could have a recognizable name.

176–Orci has mentioned he wants the dog to reappear at the end of his last Star Trek project (noted on Memory Alpha).

179. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - September 1, 2010

im all for it

180. Captain Kathryn - September 1, 2010

At first when I began watching Enterprise, I also thought Bakula was miscast. But as I continued watching the series he grew on me, as did Patrick Stewart and Kate Mulgrew. You begin to live your fantasies through these characters and begin to really love what they are projecting. I would love to see Scott in the new movie, even if it were a cameo. But we all know that JJ is hardheaded and is all politics& money so he is going to do what he wants to do and not what the fans would like to see. But still it would be nice to see him in it and maybe have Scotty find his beagle!

181. Desstruxion - September 1, 2010

157 – At this point, I doubt most casual filmgoers would identify Bakula as Archer or recognize him from Quantum Leap, so it would mostly be a paycheck for him & some fodder for the geeks.
——————————————————————–
I’ll admit it. I’m a geek. Give me fodder.

182. elodie - September 1, 2010

Bakula in ST12 is a must. This character brought so much to Star Trek universe (even if some people didn’t like Enterprise – ok, each one has its opinion but I never understand this discrimination in Star Trek universe, which is a great show with a disappointing ending) and will always bring something new something fresh.

I wanna know if Archer is still on command on a Federation starship. I wanna see him as the man Enterprise’s fans wanted to see in Enterprise finale : a man who believes in future and he will bring a lot of stuff to Pike and Kirk.

I really wanna see some Archer/Scotty, Archer/Kirk, Archer/Spock and Archer/Spock Prime : 2 generations reunited in one movie (I mean by here not the same result as Generations, I mean a common vision of future, of hope, of exploration and of experience).

Beam Admiral Archer on ST12!

183. Harry Ballz - September 1, 2010

181 Desstruxion “Give me fodder”

(in my best Darth Vader voice)

“Desstruxion……….I am your fodder!”

184. Cheve - September 1, 2010

“162. Zebonka – August 31, 2010
I do not think the worst show should be represented at all on the big screen.”

Ok. No Tuvok in the movie then. But can we pick someone up from the best one of the last 30 years? yes? Then I’d like to see TPol, please.

185. roy - September 1, 2010

A previous poster mentioned about Bob Orci not knowing the Star Trek timeline. Does’t matter whether Bob Orci knows the Star Trek timeline or not as its’ not for real. As long as he can come up with a good storyline that can be made into a really good movie that becomes box office success. This is all that counts at the end of the day.

186. grigori - September 1, 2010

Like all short-lived sci-fi shows, Enterprise is under-going a renaissance of viewers AFTER it has stopped airing. More and more people are discovering it on DVD and in re-runs, and liking it better than the die-hard whiners who didn’t get exactly what they wanted from it the first time through. Some days I’m practically tripping over folks I didn’t have pegged as Trek fans approaching me (as a known Trekker) with questions about “this series they’ve been watching on SyFy…”

I think more people would recognize Bak as Archer now.

187. Chadwick wants epic space battles in star trek 2012 - September 2, 2010

I think it would be incredible to have Scott Bakula in the 2012 Star Trek film. But to play devils advocate…..Kirk is 100 years after Archers voyages of 2151…you’re telling me Archer is 145+ years old and still just Admiral…I don’t think so. Besides in Star Trek history Archer went on to be Admiral, then ambassador to Andoria, and then served as President of the Federation. Clearly the Archer mentioned in the 2009 Star Trek movie is not John Archer but rather a descendant. Its not until TOS through TNG era that human life spans are significantly expanded, like McCoy in TNG at 137 years old. Regardless of alternate timelines, if Archer were alive and in the new movie he would not simply be Admiral 100 years later, he would, if anything be the Federation president. Or Bakula could play John Archers son or grandson which in my opinion would be more logical.

188. Damian - September 2, 2010

187–Bob Orci has confirmed that the Archer mentioned is in fact Jonathan Archer from Enterprise (see Memory Alpha article for the movie). He was President of the Federation in the late 22nd century. It is likely after that he went back to Starfleet as an admiral, hence why he was called Admiral Archer.

According to etiquette, a former President (of the USA) should not be called Mr President when their term has ended, though people rarely observe that (hence Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Carter are still called Mr President). Perhaps that is why Scotty called him by his rank, and not title.

189. Scruffy, the vampire janitor - September 2, 2010

Just so we’re all clear on this:

A = The Temporal Cold War allowed the writers of Enterprise to fudge “canon”

B = The Red Matter time holes allowed JJ to fudge “canon”

Therefore A+B = TOS / TNG/ DS9/ Voy exists only in our memories

This is getting more like a comic book every day…

190. Sarah - September 2, 2010

If Bakula won’t do Archer in the movie, I know who’d be great for that role. I have been occasionally posting a desire to see Bill Murray in a Star Trek movie. The man is a good actor. I think he’d be great for that role if Scott Bakula doesn’t take it. Bakula would be my first choice, though.

191. Damian - September 3, 2010

190–I don’t think you have much to worry about. If Abrams asked Bakula, based on Bakula’s own statements, he would do it.

192. Harry Ballz - September 3, 2010

You’re worried about Bakula turning down a high-paying acting job cameo?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA……………(wipes tear)………oh, that’s rich!

193. Commodore shaggy - September 7, 2010

I thought that the line in ST09 was a nice touch but I also wondered about the age of Archer, assuming that it still is 2245 in ST09, well over 100 years since ENT.

But I was thinking about it and one could come up with a way that Archer is still alive. It would be just like Admiral McCoy in the first TNG episode. He lived a Vulcan lifespan because of the whole thing in STIII. Archer had Surak’s katra inside of him and it could be written in a way that Archer’s lifespan was also lengthened by that experience.

With that I think a cameo role would be cool to see. Obviously if he’s still alive then he’d be a pretty big deal, being a founding father of the Federation.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.