TNG only said it ended in the 21st century, not when it began.
Spoilers Does moving the Eugenics Wars into the 21st century fundamentally change things?
- Thread starter Citiprime
- Start date
Please, Star Trek has been shoving in "the headlines" since the Sixties. And its no stranger to melodrama.
Its a (more) different timeline "now" because on Jan 6 the insurrectionists hung MIke Pence, tortured and executed Senators until then handed over the secret paperwork that proved that 2020 election was stolen, and they rethroned Trump.
Last edited:
I would love to make a full on Star Trek timeline chart but I'm pretty sure it would be impossible at this point. If only there was some software you could put divergence points into and it'd spit out lots of squiggly lines like Daniels' temporal observatory...
It's not "acting like some authority" to tell people that traffic is blocked after a tree falls in the road. The person who tells you that did not decide to block traffic; they're just recognizing the objective reality that traffic is blocked. Yelling at them for telling you about it won't change the reality.
When I was growing up, I was struck by how rare it was for film and TV science fiction to project further into the future than the 25th century. There seemed to be a widespread reluctance to get too far ahead, too distant from recognizable humanity. Or maybe 200-500 years just felt like a really long time to most people.
Although one exception was Filmation's Space Academy, whose opening narration said the Academy was founded in "the star year 3732." Most sources claim the series is set in 3732 AD, but that's actually the Academy's founding year, and the Academy is well-established at the time of the show, so it could be any amount of time afterward. And "the star year 3732" is probably at least 3732 years into humanity's permanent habitation of space, so it's probably more like the 60th century AD at a minimum.
It's not outdated because the Partisan Divide is still here and only getting worse.
I don't think there will be a Second Civil War, and already said saying there will be one is just legitimizing fear, but the source of that fear hasn't gone away. If you think the Partisan Divide has disappeared or that something worse than January 6th isn't potentially coming, then you're putting your head in the sand.
There's a huge difference between why I think there won't be a Second Civil War and why you don't think there will be one. Apparently you think there's no problem and it's "outdated". I think there is a problem, but it will just manifest in a different way.
I think polarization will intensify on current issues, we'll continue to sink further and further into dysfunction, and it'll take something outside of those issues to make enough people think in a different way to snap the nation out of it. Something that can't be so easily politicized. Which is a tall order since everything's politicized these days, but there's a way out. People will have to become exhausted by the polarization and dysfunction. The less they believe in what they're fighting for, or the more worn out from it they've become, the more likely they'll be to switch gears. So tempers intensify, taper off, and then attention shifts to something else more pressing.
Last edited:
A lot of gray-haired dudes in college?
Not at all. As I keep stressing, the point of science fiction is not to say "This will happen." It's saying "Something like this could happen as a result of such-and-such." In particular, the point of cautionary tales is to say "This could happen if we're not careful, so pay attention." It's like a "Watch for Falling Rocks" sign on the road. (Sorry for all the driving metaphors -- I've done so much driving over the past two days.) It's not saying you absolutely will be hit by a falling rock, just alerting you to the danger so you can try to avoid it. That's not "legitimizing fear," it's encouraging a rational awareness of threats. Awareness lets you avert threats. Ignorance or complacency leaves you vulnerable to them.
Look, I'm not saying I don't see your point. I was just explaining to him what my thought process was about the direction things in general seem to be going in with Current Events.
Exactly. But thanks to Voyager, we do know that California was not one of those places. The Eugenics Wars battle grounds mentioned in previous Trek have been Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.
Assuming the writers of Voyager gave any thought to the Eugenics Wars when setting that episode. in contemporary LA. (The art department apparently did). I'll head canon that episode to have taken place in the revised timeline.
No mention of any battles taking place in Asia or the Middle East, just that Khan rules that quarter of the Earth.
Why would there be any mention of those battles? Like I said earlier, it wouldn't have affected day to day life in L.A if they were wars overseas.
Khan's rule would have been at it's end at this time. The Botany Bay took off in 96. It's even possible Voyager arrived after the ceasefire.
Voyager couldn't take place in the Nu timeline. It spun off from and ran concurrent to DS9, and DS9 went to TOS specifically;
Khan's rule would have been at it's end at this time. The Botany Bay took off in 96. It's even possible Voyager arrived after the ceasefire.
Voyager couldn't take place in the Nu timeline. It spun off from and ran concurrent to DS9, and DS9 went to TOS specifically;
That's not how it works. All of TOS and DS9 are in the timeline.Why would there be any mention of those battles? Like I said earlier, it wouldn't have affected day to day life in L.A if they were wars overseas.
Khan's rule would have been at it's end at this time. The Botany Bay took off in 96. It's even possible Voyager arrived after the ceasefire.
Voyager couldn't take place in the Nu timeline. It spun off from and ran concurrent to DS9, and DS9 went to TOS specifically;
Sure it could. Time travel isn't real, so it's not like there are objective rules of time travel that preclude VOY from taking place in the "new" timeline. (Though I reiterate my interpretation that the "new" timeline is not a new timeline -- just the same old Prime Timeline with some revisions.)
It's time travel. It works however the writers say it does.
It could go in either timeline. If you'd gone to LA during WWII or the Korean War or the Vietnam War or the Gulf War, it wouldn't have looked any different than it did in peacetime (although in WWII you'd see things like gas ration stickers on the cars, propaganda posters, etc.), because none of those wars were fought on continental American soil.
I still say that since it was "Encounter at Farpoint" that retconned World War Three to the mid-21st century, it's probable that the timeline shift happened between TOS & TNG, though I'm open to a second shift between VGR & ENT, with ENT and the Secret Hideout shows being in the same continuity. (Presuming that there was no TCW interference in NX-01's mission and no Xindi attack in the original timeline.)
Although, of course, the same general 23rd-century events did still happen. The episodes we know took place in both (or all three) timelines, just with their memory of 20th/21st/22nd-century events disagreeing, and with a few variances of detail here and there.
Again, that's the PTB's call.Just to throw another wrench into the Voyager discussion ...
But isn't "Future's End" an alternate timeline and, by the very nature of Henry Starling getting control of the timeship from the 29th century and the alterations to human history that occurred because of it, NOT the original timeline?
So the presence or absence of the Eugenics Wars or Khan within those episodes is irrelevant, since one way to read the ending of "Future's End" is that Captain Braxton takes Voyager back to a timeline where none of the events happened in 1996, since he states he "never experienced that timeline" and they're following him back through the rift to the reality he's from and has authority over.
But isn't "Future's End" an alternate timeline and, by the very nature of Henry Starling getting control of the timeship from the 29th century and the alterations to human history that occurred because of it, NOT the original timeline?
So the presence or absence of the Eugenics Wars or Khan within those episodes is irrelevant, since one way to read the ending of "Future's End" is that Captain Braxton takes Voyager back to a timeline where none of the events happened in 1996, since he states he "never experienced that timeline" and they're following him back through the rift to the reality he's from and has authority over.
I'm willing to bet there were posters of the anti-War variety floating around LA in the 60s. As well as protests marches and other activity. The war wasn't something overseas and out of mind.
I'd think a global conflict like Eugenics Wars would prompt some sort of response, even in a non-combat zone. If the War ends in 1996, the same year Futures Ends take place, I'd think there would be some presence. Especially for people of Rain's generation. LA wasn't scrubbed clean of WWII on May 8th 1945 or Sept. 2nd 1945. And when did the Eugenics War end in 1996? I doubt it was on Jan 1st 1996, making the rest of the year "War Free".
We know Chronowerks exists because Shannon O'Donnell uses one of their laptops in "11:59". So Starling might have managed to make his mark without any stolen tech.
Indeed. Wars are not nice and neat clean things. WW3 was a huge conflict. Even though the United States may not have been a battlefield (even in LA) there's still a cultural component.
Similar threads
