What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Are there good people for changing the timeline?
Yes. The Doctor.
When mis-quoting Monty Python?! You do not ask much you do not.
Technically I agree with you... and in theory that's the way it should be... but, in terms of practicality, I also want people to be able to know what I'm talking about in a general discussion about The Franchise.
A real life example of something similar: The Democratic-Republicans, the opposition to the Federalist Party in the United States from the 1790s to 1820s, referred to themselves as "Republicans", but we call them "Democratic-Republicans" to avoid confusion with the Republican Party that started in the 1850s.
Somebody once argued that, while what Janeway did was terrible, Jake Sisko was justified since the Visitor timeline wasn't "supposed to happen."
Who's to know what's supposed to happen anyway? Why was the Borg assimilation of El-Auria (or whatever their planet was called) supposed to happen, but not the assimilation of Earth?
Jake's "benevolent change" may have cost about a billion people their lives... The road to hell...
Star Trek: "The Animated Series" and Star Trek: "The Original Series" are the same show. Same cast, same setting, same producers and writers. It's just the last two seasons aired a couple years later after a slight format change and budget cut.
Roddenberry wasn't actively producing, so it was more like 3rd season GR. Fontana was an associate producer and story editor on the animated show, but never a producer. The actual producers were Filmation people. Many writers overlapped, of course.
Last edited:
Yeah, this "proper timeline" argument is silly. The events of FC and ENT spawn DSC, SNW and TOS even if the aesthetics vary from series to series and one can say the entire Trek universe we know is the result of the Borg trying to change history in 2063 and failing. In my opinion Riker and Geordi were ALWAYS in the Phoenix cockpit with Zefram Cochrane and if there's a history where he was completely alone at the controls it didn't lead to Trek. Star Trek is the result of the Borg failing to prevent Cochrane's warp flight.
"You're welcome."
Seven of Nine, "RELATIVITY"
STAR TREK: VOYAGER
Seven of Nine, "RELATIVITY"
STAR TREK: VOYAGER
A cause following an effect is nonsense. It only exists in fiction because it's inexplicable otherwise. Even if there is some kind of infinite loop with the Brog and Cochrane flight, there had to be a first loop and in the first loop, the Borg didn't, couldn't exist. So the only solution is that the borg changed nothing of consequence, they ddin't prevent first flight, they just made it, marginally different.
I may defy our concept of logic, but in the Star Trek universe at least a time loop is perfectly possible. We have the words of the space/time doughnut itself in that regard!
GUARDIAN: I am my own beginning, my own ending.
SPOCK: I see no reason for answers to be couched in riddles.
GUARDIAN: I answer as simply as your level of understanding makes possible.
SPOCK: I see no reason for answers to be couched in riddles.
GUARDIAN: I answer as simply as your level of understanding makes possible.
And the TNG definition of a temporal causality loop defines that a series of events can repeat and have no seeming origin point while still technically having one, however difficult to pinpoint.
Similar threads
- Locked
