Star Trek: TNG - Hive already has continuity flaw

[Luminus]

This refers to KingDaniel's response to me as well.

Christopher wrote:

---

That's not true. We've seen multiple conflicting versions of the late 24th and early 25th century, timelines that have clearly been wiped out -- "All Good Things...," "The Visitor," "Timeless," "Shattered," and "Endgame."
And like I've said, lack of contradiction is not proof of consistency. Those various far futures may not explicitly conflict with each other, but they don't explicitly reference each other either. So you're jumping to a conclusion that can't be proven, and that doesn't even make sense in the broader context of a universe where the mutability of time has been explicitly demonstrated almost from the beginning.
No, it really, really doesn't. Admiral Janeway in "Endgame" came back from roughly the same time as adult Alexander in "Firstborn," the first decade of the 25th century. And we've seen four distinct versions of the 2390s: in "Timeless," in "The Visitor" (the portions set in Jake's mid-30s), in "Shattered" (with grown-up Naomi stuck in Astrometrics), and in "All Good Things...". Plus Trek literature has given us yet another alternate version of the same era in Millennium: War of the Prophets.
Ahh, but those aren't necessarily the same future! Remember, at the end of "Future's End," Captain Braxton's own history had been changed so that he had never been thrown back in time and had to live on 20th-century Earth. Yet the Braxton of "Relativity" remembered living on 20th-century Earth and had a grudge against Janeway because of it. They contradict each other, which is really just sloppy writing, but it certainly doesn't support your case that they're the same unalterable future. (The fact that Braxton was played by a different actor doesn't help either, though that doesn't prove anything.)
You're making the mistake of thinking of this as though it were something real instead of what it really is, a story. Since it is only make-believe, the "laws" of time travel are only what the writers need them to be for the sake of the story, and it's important to keep that in mind. As I've already explained, there are very good story reasons why Trek writers have always made a point of portraying the future as a mutable thing, so that they won't unduly restrict the storytelling options of future writers, themselves included. Your assumption just doesn't fit with either the in-story evidence or real-world common sense.

Those stories don’t contradict each other as neither of those stories said anything about the other Star Trek crews, which is why I can make my argument. Like you said, this is just a story, so jumping to conclusions is perfectly okay. Unless someone says that the Borg have taken over everything, it’s safe to assume that they haven’t in either of those scenarios simply because it’s just a story.

You yourself even accuse Voyager of sloppy writing over the Relativity/Future’s End situation. How can you agree and disagree with me at the same time? And how can you even use the term “real-world common sense,” when dealing with time-travel, something that is fantasy?


Like I said, those futures only change because of the altered events happening in the present. So, unless something happens in the present to wipeout that Borg controlled future…. Well, that’s the thing. We’ll just have to wait and see. But, yes, I am making the mistake of thinking this is real, but that’s what fans do.

[Christopher]

^Jumping to a conclusion is not okay when it contradicts virtually everything we know about Star Trek time travel. The future in the Trek universe is mutable. It's very mutable. I've given you the overwhelming in-story evidence that that's the case, and I've given you the real-world explanation why the storytellers adopted that policy. (That's what I mean by "real-world common sense." I'm not talking about the imaginary time-travel rules used within the fiction, but about the real-world reasons why it's sensible for writers in a shared fictional universe to favor a mutable future over a rigid one, because the latter would be too restrictive on their own or others' future storytelling choices.)

No, those stories you've narrowly fixated on (while ignoring quite a few others) do not blatantly contradict each other, but that does not even begin to prove that they couldn't be in separate timelines, or that the future can't change, especially when we have plenty of other evidence that it can and does change. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

On top of everything else, you're making some rather rigid assumptions about the particular situation presented in Hive without even having read the whole story. At the very least, you should wait to get all the facts before you draw any conclusions. This whole conversation is premature.

[The Wormhole]

Luminus wrote:

---

Spoilers... I think.




I just finished reading the first issue and it states that the borg of the 29th century have assimilated the entire galaxy. However, there were several stories dealing with the 31st century in Enterprise and Voyager (here).

Also, the story seems to copy and paste the same plot from Voyager's Scorpion I & II. I'd say the story is okay, but these 2 issues stood out to me. Anyone else reading this?

In regards to the Borg-controlled 29th century, I think at this point we just need to wait and see how this plays out before we start commenting on thing like that.

And yes, this does seem very much like a retelling of Scorpion.

[Shon T'Hara]

Luminus wrote:

---

^No. TV trek NEVER contradicts its future by showing 2 different versions of the same future century. There's only 1 instance of the 29th century. 1 instance of the 31 century. 1 instance of the 26th century and so on. Source: Memory Alpha

How do you explain the timeline in Parallels where the Federation was completely wiped out by the Borg?

[Therin of Andor]

Luminus wrote:

---

how can you even use the term “real-world common sense,” when dealing with time-travel, something that is fantasy?

Haha, that was always T'Pol's approach in ENT. Boy, was she wrong.

And although time travel might be impossible, that hasn't stopped theorists arguing for decades about how it might work.

[Starbreaker]

Just take a deep breath and remember that it's a form of entertainment and that none of the stuff onscreen or in the books or comics is actually real.

[Therin of Andor]

Starbreaker wrote:

---

Just take a deep breath and remember that it's a form of entertainment and that none of the stuff onscreen or in the books or comics is actually real.

* stomps off to sit in New Therin Park *

[Cartoonist]

Christopher wrote:

---

Ahh, but those aren't necessarily the same future! Remember, at the end of "Future's End," Captain Braxton's own history had been changed so that he had never been thrown back in time and had to live on 20th-century Earth. Yet the Braxton of "Relativity" remembered living on 20th-century Earth and had a grudge against Janeway because of it. They contradict each other, which is really just sloppy writing, but it certainly doesn't support your case that they're the same unalterable future.

I think most instances of sloppily written continuity errors in time-travel episodes can be chalked up to the concept of alternate universes. Writers can argue that when characters go back in time to change the past, they aren't changing their OWN past, they're actually creating an alternate universe. Then when they return to their "own" time, they're actually traveling forward into the future of that alternate reality they created. And in their original timeline, nothing's been changed and they've simply disappeared forever. So when Kirk went back in time to save those whales, HIS 23rd Century Earth still got destroyed. But the 23rd Century Earth in the NEW reality he created survives.

I actually think that argument was made clear by Abrams' film and the Countdown comics that preceded it (in which even after Spock and Nero disappeared into the black hole, Spock Prime remembered the universe in which Vulcan wasn't destroyed, and we were shown that the TNG universe we know continued to exist.

So in keeping with that principle, the Braxton who remembered what happened and the Braxton who never did any of it were not the same person; they were Braxtons from two different realities.

[King Daniel]

Ha ha, you're telling Christopher how Trek time travel works? You gotta read Watching the Clock. It not only makes every version of time travel in Trek history seem like it's part of a coherent system, but it tells a great story in it's own right too.

[Mike Winters]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

* stomps off to sit in New Therin Park *

Like you would get a new one after the other one blew up...

Mike

[Sci]

Luminus wrote:

---

how can you even use the term “real-world common sense,” when dealing with time-travel, something that is fantasy?

Because he was using the phrase "real-world common sense" in describing the creative intentions of Star Trek writers re stories set in the distant future, not how temporal physics would hypothetically work.

[fleetcaptain]

Kinda of interesting how its only Picard and Riker shown in most of the issue and no body else plus they didn't even show the Titan but mentioned her only. I do like the nod to Archer through, which a descent is serving aboard another Enterprise.

[Therin of Andor]

Mike Winters wrote:

---

Like you would get a new one after the other one blew up...

Have you not read "The Typhon Pact: Paths of Disharmony"?

And, as of the latest "Titan" book, I have an Andorian warship as well.

[Luminus]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Jumping to a conclusion is not okay when it contradicts virtually everything we know about Star Trek time travel. The future in the Trek universe is mutable. It's very mutable. I've given you the overwhelming in-story evidence that that's the case, and I've given you the real-world explanation why the storytellers adopted that policy. (That's what I mean by "real-world common sense." I'm not talking about the imaginary time-travel rules used within the fiction, but about the real-world reasons why it's sensible for writers in a shared fictional universe to favor a mutable future over a rigid one, because the latter would be too restrictive on their own or others' future storytelling choices.)

No, those stories you've narrowly fixated on (while ignoring quite a few others) do not blatantly contradict each other, but that does not even begin to prove that they couldn't be in separate timelines, or that the future can't change, especially when we have plenty of other evidence that it can and does change. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

On top of everything else, you're making some rather rigid assumptions about the particular situation presented in Hive without even having read the whole story. At the very least, you should wait to get all the facts before you draw any conclusions. This whole conversation is premature.

I think you forgot to read this part of my post:

"Well, that’s the thing. We’ll just have to wait and see. But, yes, I am making the mistake of thinking this is real, but that’s what fans do."

@KingDaniel. Christopher isn't perfect. In any case, that book is on my amazon.com wish list. I'll see for myself if it makes sense and somehow makes all the time travel coherent, thank you.

[Mike Winters]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Have you not read "The Typhon Pact: Paths of Disharmony"?

And, as of the latest "Titan" book, I have an Andorian warship as well.

I am actually re-reading a bunch of novels. Just re-finished Destiny last week. Soon I will be back to re-reading the TP books. So you got another park? I new you had a shiny old warship. But with that Captain she has.. it might not end up so shiny...

Mike