From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos
From Address: anim8rfsk{at}cox.net
Subject: Re: The alt.tv.star-trek.tos FAQ

In article ,
 Graeme  wrote:

> On Friday, November 8, 2013 1:19:30 AM UTC-6, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > Of course in The Menagerie they said no ship kept records that detailed 
> > so maybe it was a new addition.  :)
> 
> 
> I consider that to be a continuity error.  Court-Martial and Menagerie were 
> made back to back.  In one, Kirk says that no such recordings are made 
> (present tense), and in the other we see such a recording.  I don't see any 
> way to reconcile it except to admit it as an error.
> 
> But again, I have no trouble believing that the bridge is videotaped 24/7.  
> It's the most important area of the ship.  But Enterprise was more than just 
> scenes on the Bridge, it was scenes in private quarters, shuttlecrafts, on 
> planets, you name it.  Given the revelation at the end, that it was just a 
> historical novel, I think of it as a Tom Clancy novel.  The characters are 
> fictional.  Even within the fictional Trek universe, Archer is a fictional 
> character.  As Wiseguy says, we have to go with what we see onscreen, and 
> nobody could take that kind of liberties with a genuine historical personage. 
>  Given that it's a novel, the whole thing, characters and all, must be 
> fictional.  You simply couldn't take these kind of liberties with a 
> historical personality who lived in an era when video recording was common.
> 
> 
> > It's weird though that if there wasn't a real guy, that 
> > Riker was hoping to get inspiration by watching Archer's stirring speech 
> 
> Good point, but I don't have a problem with it.  Take Gandalf on the bridge 
> of Khazad-dum, facing the Balrog.  Fictional character, fictional 
> confrontation.  The way Tolkien wrote it, it took about 500 words to tell.  
> The way Jackson, it took up nearly 20 minutes of film time.  It just grabbed 
> people.  Incredible as it seems, I suppose that Archer is a fictional 
> character who really inspires 24th century people.
> 
> > I'd have still vastly preferred that the exploits of Archer the 
> > Executioner had led to the Mirror Universe, and the reason the Kirkverse 
> > was so much better was that Archer had been run over by a lumbering beer 
> > truck like Edith Keeler or something.
> 
> B&B didn't think of it.  That would have been a GREAT ending, for
the entire 
> series to have taken place in the Mirror Universe.  People on the net bandied 
> that idea around for years.  But B&B didn't have that kind of imagination.
> 
> > Whether he was real at any point or not or in any series or not, I think 
> > we have to concede that Archer didn't exist in the Kirkverse.
> 
> Absolutely.  Everything that Kirk did first, they tried to tell us Archer 
> actually did first.  Including discovering Tribbles.  It's impossible to 
> believe that tribbles were completely unknown to Kirk if Archer had dealt 
> with them.  More likely that Archer is a fictional character who was dreamed 
> up after the events of Trouble With Tribbles.

Phlox even said that Tribbles were banned on dozens of worlds ... and 
yet they were unknown?

-- 
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux