Terok Nor had pretty dark lighting (though that was because Cardassians don't like bright lights), as was the Mirror Defiant.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
Terok Nor had pretty dark lighting (though that was because Cardassians don't like bright lights), as was the Mirror Defiant.
How so? What is there in ENT (indeed, what could there be?) that affirmatively places it in a version of the timeline where the events of FC didn't happen?
They never mentioned Qo'noS/the homeworld in the DS9 mirror episodes.
Shit happens.
I don't follow you.
If you're suggesting that the TNG-era holo-simulation in "TATV" somehow "backdates" ENT into the continuity, there's no logical necessity for that. Ditto for events in the Mirror Universe. The point of FC is that, after that incursion into the past, the entire timeline from 2063 forward reconstructed itself. We can make the assumption that it was pretty similar to what went before, based on the Ent-D crew being satisfied with the results and the fact that events in DS9 and VOY continued more-or-less seamlessly, but we don't really know that it was exactly the same.
The only canonical information we have about the prime Trekverse after FC is the stuff made after FC — remaining episodes of DS9 and VOY, and the last two TNG movies. No earlier story from any episode has been re-made (understandably enough). However, we do have plenty of moments from before FC that reflect back on Starfleet history in ways that suggest, in the timeline as it existed then, the NX-01 and the events of ENT did not exist. And indeed, the framing sequence in "TATV" is something that we obviously did not see happen in the original version of "The Pegasus."
The simplest solution is to assume the incursion in 2063 had ripple effects that gave rise to what we saw in ENT (and presumably other changes closer to the incursion point) that gradually leveled out and "reverted to the mean" of the timeline as we had known it. This is a concept that's hardly uncommon in time travel stories (allowing of course that any scheme of time travel logic is perforce fictional).
(And as for "writers' intent"... there is no Word of God here. After all, Trek has had a lot of writers... which ones take precedence over which other ones?)
Whoever is working on the newest part of the franchise.
FWIW, I also think the timeline incursion into 1986 in STIV had ripple effects in the future... and the same for certain other less-than-careful visits to the past. Basically, I see what is now called Trek's "prime timeline" as a succession of timelines, each slightly modified from the one before.
Nearly every Star Trek time travel story has shown the changes to the time lime happen immediately.
City on the Edge of Forever, Yesterday's Enterprise, Past Tense etc
Hell even First Contact does with the assimilated Earth.
There is no ripple effect. So going by that logic everything that takes place after FC is in an alternate Timeline.
City on the Edge of Forever, Yesterday's Enterprise, Past Tense etc
Hell even First Contact does with the assimilated Earth.
There is no ripple effect. So going by that logic everything that takes place after FC is in an alternate Timeline.
I've always seen the "intent of the writers" as something that's open to interpretation (we're all familiar with "the death of the author," after all). But beyond that, when it comes to how to interpret contradictions and (apparent) retcons, I've never been partial to the notion that recency = primacy. My take is that the preponderance of evidence from the overall body of the continuity is usually what it makes sense to defer to.
Yes, exactly! That was the point of CoolEddie's initial post, and my response to same. There is a timeline where Zefram Cochrane discovered FTL travel in 2063 without interference from time-traveling Borg, and then there's a timeline where he was prevented from making that discovery by time-traveling Borg, and then there's a timeline where he successfully made that discovery thanks to the intervention of time-traveling Starfleet officers.
The first one is the timeline in which we saw episodes and films prior to FC. The second one is the timeline seen momentarily in the opening scenes of FC. The third one is the timeline in which we've seen everything put on screen since FC... including every episode of ENT.
(Also, just to clarify some possible confusion here: when I say "ripple effect," I don't mean to suggest changes to the timeline that only kick in gradually, like in Back to the Future. That approach doesn't really make any logical sense. I only mean to suggest changes to the timeline that ripple forward into the future from the precipitating event(s)... such that at any point in that future, it would seem as if things had "always" been that way. Depending on the needs of the story in hand, such ripples can either increase in magnitude or subside the further into the future one goes; in this case I'm suggesting the latter.)
Last edited:
Star Trek isn't consistent on this front - Assignment Earth's plot, for example, rests on the reveal that the Enterprise's intervention was part of history already. STFC showing the assimilation of Earth scuppers the idea that the E's trip back in this case was a predestination paradox, so we must conclude the timeline was altered by the Borg, and then altered again by Picard and co. The timeline they created is at least to a certain extent, alternate. Zephram Cochrane and Lily had knowledge of the distant future, and several people die who didn't the 'first time round'.
Personally, however, I think the TATV issue torpedoes the 'ENT is an alt timeline' theory out of the water. Yes, ok, in theory we can't prove it isn't an alternate timeline still but it is at the very least one that led to a TNG era indistinguishable from the one we knew. That's close enough in my book. The Defiant is explainable as that is the mirror universe, and the ship could potentially come from any one of billions of realities and timelines. But TATV is just plain unavoidable.
I consider that a shame, myself, I rather like the idea and it is a neat and effective means of explaining ENT's own continuity issues. Cochrane's knowledge of the Enterprise E would even explain why the NX01 was called Enterprise.
Based on the limited information we have to compare, yes, it does appear that way... in the 2370s. What differences might exist at earlier points, we have no way of knowing.
Quite the contrary, at the end of the second season Braga actually did state Enterprise was in a separate timeline altered by the events of First Contact. Though it can be argued this was a vain attempt by him to set up suspense for the forthcoming Xindi arc, and make fans believe anything could potentially happen. It was Manny Coto and his writing staff in the fourth season who decided to make the show legitimately Prime Universe.
There we go. Discovery is not up to YOUR particular standards. It's perfectly okay if you don't have a convincing reason why it might not be up to everyone else's standards. That, after all, is the difference between a fact and an opinion.
"I refuse to believe Luke Skywalker would ever act like a grumpy old man on a secluded island who doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything!" sums up alot of people's reaction to that opening scene. What, do you suppose, that reaction could be based on if not an overly specific interpretation of who and what Luke Skywalker actually is?
And if you have a very specific idea of who a particular character is, then any behavior that deviates from that idea shatters your illusions. This is, evidently, the problem with Discovery too: there's a small but highly vocal population that has a very specific vision for what Star Trek is SUPPOSED to be, and they react very badly when it doesn't measure up to their vision.
It's like a kid spending six months expecting to get a PlayStation for his birthday only to get an Xbox instead. You don't seriously think that the Xbox is such a terrible gaming console that a ten year old would collapse in despair if he got one? Or perhaps -- just PERHAPS -- it has more to do with the kid's expectations being unmet than with the quality of the product itself?
He did? I've never heard that! I'd love to know the source?...
It seems pretty distinguishable to me. For one thing, it seems to imply that the search for the Pegasus took a hell of a lot longer in the FC timeline than it did in the Prime one. For another... well, Riker is visibly older in TATV than he is in "Pegasus."
And not to be "that guy" but if we do want to be annoyingly literal about visuals, the different turbolift, the slightly off corridors, and the double-Riker in "Ten forward" (is that Tom? It's probably Tom) implies the Enterprise-D is ever so slightly different than the one we're used to.
All of which suggests that we are yet again in another timeline.
Here's another, earlier example: take "Yesterday's Enterprise." The "restored" timeline at the end of that episode does indeed seem "nearly identical" to the one at the beginning... except, as we eventually learn, it has Sela in it. Sela was born to a woman who dropped into 2344 without actually having been born, and Sela therefore could not have existed in the TNG timeline prior to the time travel in "YE." Nevertheless, she became pretty significant to future events.
(And again, like with FC, you can't write it off as a predestination paradox, because it's not a closed time loop. In each instance the timeline was changed, and then changed again, and there was no guarantee of the second change happening.)
(FWIW, I hate predestination paradoxes anyway. They almost always strike me as lazy writing, signifying a reluctance to really think through the ramifications of the time travel being depicted.)
(And again, like with FC, you can't write it off as a predestination paradox, because it's not a closed time loop. In each instance the timeline was changed, and then changed again, and there was no guarantee of the second change happening.)
(FWIW, I hate predestination paradoxes anyway. They almost always strike me as lazy writing, signifying a reluctance to really think through the ramifications of the time travel being depicted.)
I much prefer the Dali paradox, aka the melting clock paradox.
I find that hard to believe, considering the only time it ever actually HAPPENED on Star Trek was "Time's Arrow." In other works of fiction it's actually something of a mind-bender, and it's incredibly hard to convincingly write stories around.
Similar threads
