Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 2x04 - "Watcher"

[Trekker4747]

as for ten forward, we know there were many lounges on the D in season 1. Picard decided it would be better to have a single large lounge where the crew could mingle, and asked Guinan to run it. She came aboard and said “ok, let’s put it here on deck 10”, and the rest is history.

Ten. Forward. Was. There. In Season 1!

We didn't see it, but Troi mentions it being there in AGT.

 

[Mudd]

It makes sense but it makes you think that in that case, the Confederation is the actual future and that the Fedrration only happens when Picard and co. Interfere.
In that case they are altering the future into something that shouldn’t happen.

There is no "actual future," either in the Trek universe or the real one.

Before this series, the war universe in "Yesterday's Enterprise" would have been the so-called "actual future."

 

[thribs]

There is no "actual future," either in the Trek universe or the real one.

Before this series, the war universe in "Yesterday's Enterprise" would have been the so-called "actual future."

You know what I mean.
I noticed you have changed your avatar pic. Your previous one made you look like Richard Dean Anderson at a distance

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

TrekBBS launched during DS9, and plenty of us discussed trek before then on things like umtss. I remember the hype about first contact and the story leaks coming out - end of the federation stuff etc.



We don’t know she can age down (although seems a reasonable inference), but she didn’t want to age though, she was happy to be a kid again for a little while. Presumably she can’t age down to a baby, or even a child, perhaps the removal of the RVN sequences prevented it.

In fact aging happens on a subcellular level.
I would have to research it first again to fully explain.
But Chromosome talomeres shortening is what causes actual aging.
It reduces protection against dna damage…

Being a child has nothing to do with that.
If you reverse the talomere shortening in an adult you would get an incredibly healthy adult with fantastic skin, not an underdeveloped person.

 

[Therin of Andor]

10-Forward is mentioned to have existed in S1 (mentioned in AGT) just because we never saw it, doesn't mean it wasn't there.

But it didn't yet have Guinan.

 

[Tosk]

But it didn't yet have Guinan.

Unless she boarded the week after Tasha's funeral.

 

[DaveyNY]

But do we know Q altered the past? He could be trying to fix it.
I mean it’s not really his style to alter history. Seems very dangerous

Which is probably why it is effecting him as well.

 

[Timofnine]

My most important question about this episode is ‘who watches the watchers’?

 

[UssGlenn]

According to Q-Who the El-Aurian homeworld was assimilated a century ago, which would put it around 2266, 26 years before Generations

Huh, so it really could happen during SNW. One of those ships is named after a Federation Ambassador so they have been on the Federation radar for a while.

 

[Guy Gardener]

There is no "actual future," either in the Trek universe or the real one.

Before this series, the war universe in "Yesterday's Enterprise" would have been the so-called "actual future."

But after the Anti-time timeline Vanished, Anti-time Tasha Tar and he Romulan daughter didn't vanish.

Anti-time Tasha was a time traveler arriving in the past from a future that didn't exist.

The act of time travel is a prophylactic against temporal erasure and paradox (sometimes).

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

I love watching people fight about the rules of time travel in a show where you can go back in time by flying backwards around the sun.

 

[Mudd]

I never fight about rules.

 

[Mudd]

You know what I mean.
I noticed you have changed your avatar pic. Your previous one made you look like Richard Dean Anderson at a distance

Thanks. It flattered me too much; after a while I'm uncomfortable with that. A long while.

I know what you mean. I'm pointing out that it's a repeated, if not consistent, bit of illogical in Trek time travel stories. It is an unavoidable logical issue when events depart from linear causality in a narrative.

Many writers have exploited the illogic as the very focus and payoff of a narrative. Heinlein, at least twice.*

I think that's why the popularity of branched timelines has grown in Trek fandom and in continuity. Yes, it's vaguely based on quantum something-or-other, but it's popular for the reason that it sort of untangles narrative.

Neither the war universe or the TNG universe was the "real one" - both came into existence simultaneously, one based on a different decision made by Picard. That doesn't make the causality less of a problem, necessarily, but it obviates the need to assign "real" or "original" to one or the other.

Which leads us back to "Couldn't two Picards come back?" and the answer is most likely "Yes, they could."

Confederate Picard might not be motivated to come back to this exact point - he never (that we know) found himself plunged into another branch reality that he felt the need to escape from.

It still doesn't make sense, does it? I just think it makes a little more than assuming that one universe came into being before the other.

I will go lie down, now.

*"By His Bootstraps" and "All You Zombies."

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Thanks. It flattered me too much; after a while I'm uncomfortable with that. A long while.

I know what you mean. I'm pointing out that it's a repeated, if not consistent, bit of illogical in Trek time travel stories. It is an unavoidable logical issue when events depart from linear causality in a narrative.

Many writers have exploited the illogic as the very focus and payoff of a narrative. Heinlein, at least twice.*

I think that's why the popularity of branched timelines has grown in Trek fandom and in continuity. Yes, it's vaguely based on quantum something-or-other, but it's popular for the reason that it sort of untangles narrative.

Neither the war universe or the TNG universe was the "real one" - both came into existence simultaneously, one based on a different decision made by Picard. That doesn't make the causality less of a problem, necessarily, but it obviates the need to assign "real" or "original" to one or the other.

Which leads us back to "Couldn't two Picards come back?" and the answer is most likely "Yes, they could."

Confederate Picard might not be motivated to come back to this exact point - he never (that we know) found himself plunged into another branch reality that he felt the need to escape from.

It still doesn't make sense, does it? I just think it makes a little more than assuming that one universe came into being before the other.

I will go lie down, now.

*"By His Bootstraps" and "All You Zombies."

Can we please have an episode of evil Picard in the prime universe sitting in a nursing home screaming about how he is a conquering general and everyone should fear him.

 

[Tuskin38]

Huh, so it really could happen during SNW. One of those ships is named after a Federation Ambassador so they have been on the Federation radar for a while.

Kirk gets the enterprise in 2265, so no it’s during TOS

 

[The Old Mixer]

p. 51--We can talk about ICE in here, but not Tuvix! NEVER TUVIX! Tuvix is @Akiraprise 's problem.

 

[Longinus]

With those out of the way: I liked how they explained Picard's accent by saying that his family fled to England during WWII.

I haven't read the entire thread but I have to respond to this as several people have mentioned this as a good thing.

I hate it.

I hate that they felt that this needs an explanation. This is just utterly bizarre America-centrism. Apparently Americans think that American accent is the natural state of English language, and no explanation is needed for countless of characters in Trek who do not speak English as their first language, yet have perfect American accent. Yet if a person from Europe (where British English is the regional variant taught in schools in most counties) has a British accent it for some reason needs an explanation. There are currently countless Europeans with native or near-native level British accent with no direct connection to the UK, simply because that's how the language was taught to them and they learned it well.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Picard's accent, like Klingon foreheads and Han Solo's last name, isn't something that really needed an explanation. But now that we have one, I'm not going to linger on it, I'm just going to accept it and move on.

 

[Sci]

I haven't read the entire thread but I have to respond to this as several people have mentioned this as a good thing.

I hate it.

I hate that they felt that this needs an explanation. This is just utterly bizarre America-centrism. Apparently Americans think that American accent is the natural state of English language, and no explanation is needed for countless of characters in Trek who do not speak English as their first language, yet have perfect American accent. Yet if a person from Europe (where British English is the regional variant taught in schools in most counties) has a British accent it for some reason it needs an explanation. There are currently countless Europeans with native or near-native level British accent with no direct connection to the UK, simply because that's how the language was taught to them and they learned it well.

1) The Picard family fleeing to Europe doesn't explain Picard's accent, because he was still raised in France by French parents.

2) The purpose of that bit was not to explain Picard's accent. It was to create a plot reason for why Picard and Agnes didn't run into 2024 inhabitants of Chateau Picard so the production could re-use the Chateau Picard sets.

 

[urbandefault]

Did anybody else notice Picard's shirt? Presumably the one he found on La Sirena? Remarkably similar to the FC-era uniform, if a bit faded.