Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?

[lawman]

I wasn't referring to Trek specifically; I just dislike predestination paradoxes in general. They have to be incredibly well-written to be worth the trouble (e.g., Heinlein's "By His Bootstraps"). More often, you just get nonsense like the movie Looper.

(And yeah, FWIW "Time's Arrow" did annoy me. Although IMHO the worst handling of time travel in Trek canon by far was VOY's "Future's End.")

 

[Rahul]

I wasn't referring to Trek specifically; I just dislike predestination paradoxes in general. They have to be incredibly well-written to be worth the trouble (e.g., Heinlein's "By His Bootstraps"). More often, you just get nonsense like the movie Looper.

(And yeah, FWIW "Time's Arrow" did annoy me. Although IMHO the worst handling of time travel in Trek canon by far was VOY's "Future's End.")

You know? I love BOTH "Time's Arrow" AND "Future's End"
Like, they totally contradict each other, and I would prefer if it wasn't the future Federation in "Future's End" but some random super-advanced time-travelling aliens. But IMO both succeeded in telling interesting time-paradox stories. Star Trek isn't - and shouldn't be - primarily a time travel show. Thus I will give a lot of leeway (certainly more than others) for them to depict time travel completely different from one story to the next. I don't ask for a lot of consistency here - time travel is AND SHOULD BE mind-fuck-y - as long as they do some interesting stuff with it.

What I absolutely HATE is using "time travel" as an excuse to do a period piece (like DS9's "Past Tense"), where they totally gloss over the time travel aspect, and use it only to tell a silly costume story from another genre. It's the same stupid shit as the standard "trapped in a holodeck and need to play it through"-shit. If I watch Star Trek, I don't want to see some stupid Dixon Hill crime story or a Victorian romance plot, I want to see science fiction. As long as there is a neat science fiction twist to it, I'll be happy. But NEVER use timetravel (or holodeck) to tell your completely useless non-science fiction story that you normally couldn't do on a science fiction show or some crap. Give some thought to it. Both "Time's Arrow" and "Future's End" did that (although with wildly different conclusions each time).

 

[lawman]

I get your annoyance with holodeck stories; although IMHO the Moriarty ones did put an interesting twist on things, in general they're about as compelling as "it was all a dream" stories. But what's wrong with DS9's "Past Tense" (and how is a warning parable set in the 2020s anything but science fiction)...?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I wasn't referring to Trek specifically; I just dislike predestination paradoxes in general. They have to be incredibly well-written to be worth the trouble (e.g., Heinlein's "By His Bootstraps"). More often, you just get nonsense like the movie Looper.

(And yeah, FWIW "Time's Arrow" did annoy me. Although IMHO the worst handling of time travel in Trek canon by far was VOY's "Future's End.")

Looper was a good concept poorly executed, but most of the time the Bootstrap Paradox is something of a mindfuck. A better example would actually be "Twelve Monkeys" or even the alternate ending of "The Butterfly Effect" where it turns out the reason his mother kept having miscarriages is because her children -- who all, apparently by genetics, have the ability to travel through time -- keep jumping back in time and aborting themselves because of the terrible consequences their very existence will have in the world. And Doctor Who did a (somewhat) well executed version of this in "Before the Flood" where he basically went back in time to solve the Ghost Problem, then left instructions for himself on HOW to solve the Ghost Problem which then prompted his future self to figure out that he needed to go back in time...

Pretty sure that if time travel really existed, this is more or less how it would actually work.

 

[Phoenix219]

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.)

I don't even believe in Predestination Paradoxes. To me, it just means there is a previous timeline that set up events for a loop and we are not privy to what may have happened in a previous iteration / timeline / due to outside 4D manipulation.

 

[WebLurker]

Tell that to the fans who think that ENT only exists because of a changed timeline in First Contact.

Disproven in "Regeneration" (ENT), "These Are the Voyages..." (ENT), Into Darkness, and Beyond (as in each single episode alone makes it impossible). Why are we still talking about this?

Does it? There's nothing in Kelvin Trek to suggest that the Enterprise we see there is the first of the name, right?

The non-canon Countdown to Darkness tie-in comic did have a pre-1701 Enterprise, however since it's not canon (and the comics are riddles with continuity errors), the answer is no.

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'.

There's no inconsistency with some time travel events being predestination paradoxes and others being accidents. As far as the FC incident, who's to say that the multiple changes in the timeline were not part of the proper flow of events (in other words, that the Borg Earth timeline briefly existing before the crew of the E set things back on course was "supposed" to happen). Also, FC was a predestination, then Cochrane and Slone "aways" learned about the future and all that.

(If nothing else, FC implies predestination with Riker given Cochrane one of his quotes early on and is confirmed to be predestination in "Relativity" [VOY] and "Regeneration" [ENT]. If the only hassle is seeing the Borg timeline before )

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.

Going off the top of my head, "Assignment: Earth" (TOS), First Contact, "Future's End, Parts I and II" (VOY) dealt with them. It was even considered to make Voyage Home a predestination tale at one time.

I don't even believe in Predestination Paradoxes. To me, it just means there is a previous timeline that set up events for a loop and we are not privy to what may have happened in a previous iteration / timeline / due to outside 4D manipulation.

"Trials and Tribble-lations" (DS9) establishes that they exist in the Star Trek universe (and co-exist with non-predestined time travel).

 

[lawman]

How do you figure ENT's "Regeneration" disproves the notion that the series takes place in a post-FC timeline? The story literally couldn't happen except in a post-FC timeline, since it involves Borg frozen on Earth in 2063 due to the events of FC!

 

[Tuskin38]

How do you figure ENT's "Regeneration" disproves the notion that the series takes place in a post-FC timeline? The story literally couldn't happen except in a post-FC timeline, since it involves Borg frozen on Earth in 2063 due to the events of FC!

Doesn't the episode imply the 2063 borg are the reason the borg are heading to the Beta quadrant?

The estimation of how long it would take for the message to reach the Delta Quadrant is the 24th century.

 

[fireproof78]

Disproven in "Regeneration" (ENT), "These Are the Voyages..." (ENT), Into Darkness, and Beyond (as in each single episode alone makes it impossible). Why are we still talking about this?

It really doesn't.

 

[Discofan]

Doesn't the episode imply the 2063 borg are the reason the borg are heading to the Beta quadrant?

The estimation of how long it would take for the message to reach the Delta Quadrant is the 24th century.

At best that message is redundant, at worst it causes a temporal paradox.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

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?

Agreed on the whole Luke thing. I bought his whole story 100% and it made him a richer character.

 

[Vger23]

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 couldn't POSSIBLY be the "Star Trek has always (gotta have the phrase "has always" in there BTW...it helps hammer the point soundly home) been about ethical dilemmas, philosophy, conference rooms, and peaceful exploration" crew...could it??

I love that crew. LOVE them.

 

[The Wormhole]

He did? I've never heard that! I'd love to know the source?...

I read it in an interview with him done towards the end of Enterprise's second season in the spring of 2003, right around the same time the Borg episode of Enterprise aired. Unfortunately, I can't find it now.

 

[Discofan]

He did? I've never heard that! I'd love to know the source?...

It makes sense though.

 

[shapeshifter]

It's "clear" as mud. Or perhaps Mudd, who's gone from sex trafficking nucence to Klingon collaborator and mass murderer.

Technically, chronologically he goes from Klingon collaborator and mass murderer to sex trafficking nuisance, so progress is indicated.

 

[WebLurker]

It really doesn't.

I think they do:

"Regeneration" (ENT) showed how the Borg learned about Earth and came by for their pre-First Contact appearances in TNG.

"These Are the Voyages..." (ENT) shows that the ENT show was part of the pre-First Contact timeline by trying it into the events of the pre-First Contact story "The Pegasus" (TNG).

The Kelvin timeline diverged from the prime universe long before the hypothetical timeline change with First Contact, and we see a model of the NX-01in Into Darkness and Beyond not only has an ENT-era ship with historically accurate technology, but Krall recalls serving in the MACOs (an ENT invention) and fighting the Xindi (almost certainly meaning that he was assigned to the MACO squad onboard the NX-01 during ENT season 3, just never seen onscreen). Therefore, the ENT show had to be part of the timeline long before First Contact.

Finally, even if you wish to disregard all that, the Powers That Be have stated that ENT was always a prime universe show and that First Contact did not alter the timeline.

Because of authorial intent, and, more importantly, canonical facts, I submit that the "First Contact changed the timeline and that's were ENT came from" scenario has not only been refuted, but it was never accurate in the first place.

 

[fireproof78]

I think they do:

"Regeneration" (ENT) showed how the Borg learned about Earth and came by for their pre-First Contact appearances in TNG.

"These Are the Voyages..." (ENT) shows that the ENT show was part of the pre-First Contact timeline by trying it into the events of the pre-First Contact story "The Pegasus" (TNG).

The Kelvin timeline diverged from the prime universe long before the hypothetical timeline change with First Contact, and we see a model of the NX-01in Into Darkness and Beyond not only has an ENT-era ship with historically accurate technology, but Krall recalls serving in the MACOs (an ENT invention) and fighting the Xindi (almost certainly meaning that he was assigned to the MACO squad onboard the NX-01 during ENT season 3, just never seen onscreen). Therefore, the ENT show had to be part of the timeline long before First Contact.

Finally, even if you wish to disregard all that, the Powers That Be have stated that ENT was always a prime universe show and that First Contact did not alter the timeline.

Because of authorial intent, and, more importantly, canonical facts, I submit that the "First Contact changed the timeline and that's were ENT came from" scenario has not only been refuted, but it was never accurate in the first place.

Ok, I'm missing something so I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this subject, save for one point.

I don't see how the Kelvin Timeline Diverged so far back before "First Contact" occurred, since there really isn't enough variation, and we see MACO's, as part of their history. I still maintain that the point of divergence is the Narada incident and illuminates Starfleet history right before "The Cage" (uniforms, ships, etc).

 

[Tuskin38]

I'm thinking they meant before 2373, not 2063

 

[Phoenix219]

No, the Kelvin Timeline change was well AFTER the events of FC contact, since it originated in a post Nemesis future. It would be splintering off of the 23rd century of the post FC/"ENT" timeline. FC already rewrote history from 2063 onward. 09 rewrote it again from the destruction of the Kelvin onward.

 

[cooleddie74]

2387: Eight years after the events of NEM the Hobus supernova destroys Romulus. Spock is still living on Romulus at the time and the post-Shinzon Romulan leadership recruit the Ambassador to find a way to stop the supernova shockwave before it reaches their homeworld. Failing to stop the planet's destruction, Spock and Nero are thrown back in time through Spock's Red Matter black hole. Their paths through the black hole diverge after they enter with Nero and the Narada emerging in 2233, Spock and the Jellyfish in 2258.

2233: The Narada emerges from the black hole near the Federation-Klingon border, altering the timeline from that moment forward. By the time the Jellyfish arrives twenty-five years later Spock finds himself in a timeline that has already been drastically changed.