11:59

[Guy Gardener]

but that was the point surely?

There were breaking ground the day after Henry gave in.

It was "our" universe until a Janeway bent over for progress... or I suppose you could say that the future was built upon the decisions of men like Janeway listening to women like O'Donnell.

I swear! I was FOR ONCE trying to be optimistic! I don't know what happened?

 

[AuntKate]

I suppose that you also dislike "Future's End," set in 1996, because Chronowerx and Henry Starling don't exist?

Hey, wait. Henry Janeway. Henry Starling.

Coincidence?

 

[SonicRanger]

I suppose that you also dislike "Future's End," set in 1996, because Chronowerx and Henry Starling don't exist?

Kinda, yeah.

 

[froot]

^ I believe there is a Chronowerx web browser seen in the background of a scene in 11:59, but I can't verify that.

 

[AuntKate]

^ I believe there is a Chronowerx web browser seen in the background of a scene in 11:59, but I can't verify that.

Really? And people say there is no continuity in Voyager.

 

[AuntKate]

I suppose that you also dislike "Future's End," set in 1996, because Chronowerx and Henry Starling don't exist?

Kinda, yeah.

Yeah. Well, I guess I am just more willing to "suspend my disbelief" and enjoy the story being told.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I started a thread a year back insisting that if Henry Starling was one of Nixon's "plumbers" then Watergate would never have happened, which would have tabled Ford and Carters presidencies in favour of a second term for Nixon.

It's a very different Earth in Futures End.

 

[SonicRanger]

I suppose that you also dislike "Future's End," set in 1996, because Chronowerx and Henry Starling don't exist?

Kinda, yeah.

Yeah. Well, I guess I am just more willing to "suspend my disbelief" and enjoy the story being told.

That'd be easier to do if "11:59" told a better story.

I started a thread a year back insisting that if Henry Starling was one of Nixon's "plumbers" then Watergate would never have happened, which would have tabled Ford and Carters presidencies in favour of a second term for Nixon.

It's a very different Earth in Futures End.

That's a possibility, yes, but it still puts Trek outside the possibility of being "our" future... unless you mentally replace "Starling" with "Gates" and "Chronowerx" with "Microsoft."

And in "Future's End," Starling is responsible for inventing the integrated circuit. Well, I know what that person really was... throws you out of the episode if you know such things.

 

[henbane]

The main problem is that the Millennium Gate obviously doesn't exist in our universe, nor did the writers have reason to suspect it would. That places Trek outside our universe and, thus, makes it much less interesting or relevant to us as viewers.

I am guessing that you dislike "The City on the Edge of Forever" because Helen Keeler "doesn't exist in our universe" either, and you don't like "The Wrath of Kahn" because Kahn "doesn't exist in our universe." And the "Little Green Men," if they existed, probably weren't Ferengi, etc. Disliking a Star Trek episode because the writers take liberties with current history is just a bit too precious for me. Fact is, Star Trek doesn't "really" exist in our universe, either, except, of course, as the figment of some very fertile imaginations.

Just sayin'.

My point exactly AuntKate! It's all fiction and almost by the very definition of doesn't exist in our universe So does it really matter if the writers "take liberties with our universe"? I say thank goodness that they do - do we really want all fiction to have a sound basis in reality?? Hell no - imagination and the ideas that spring from there are way too interesting!

As a scientist I believe that a fertile imagination is often the breeding ground of many a great idea that may (I stress, may) become a reality.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Kinda, yeah.

Yeah. Well, I guess I am just more willing to "suspend my disbelief" and enjoy the story being told.

That'd be easier to do if "11:59" told a better story.

I started a thread a year back insisting that if Henry Starling was one of Nixon's "plumbers" then Watergate would never have happened, which would have tabled Ford and Carters presidencies in favour of a second term for Nixon.

It's a very different Earth in Futures End.

That's a possibility, yes, but it still puts Trek outside the possibility of being "our" future... unless you mentally replace "Starling" with "Gates" and "Chronowerx" with "Microsoft."

And in "Future's End," Starling is responsible for inventing the integrated circuit. Well, I know what that person really was... throws you out of the episode if you know such things.

And what about Flint from TOS Requiem fro Methuselah?

Dudes 6 Thousand years old.

Been shaping and guiding mankind for a lot of that before he finally said "fuck it".

In Star Trek, Bill Gates probably is Flint.

Star Trek diverged form our Earth's history a while back.

 

[SonicRanger]

What would you think if the VOY (or other Trek) writers wanted to tell a story where Abraham Lincoln was never president and it was Jimmy Carter who finally freed the slaves? You (or most of the audience) would immediately think "WTF?!"

 

[JanewayRulz!]

^^ Actually, no we wouldn't. We, as Scifi fans would immediately think... Parallel Universe as in TNG's "Parallels" or the mirror universes of TOS/DS9.

 

[PrimaryAdjunct]

This is an awesome idea, i personally was watching the star trek movie marathon this new years, but next year ile give that episode a go, and next time i get lobotomized i'll watch spocks brain!

 

[Guy Gardener]

What would you think if the VOY (or other Trek) writers wanted to tell a story where Abraham Lincoln was never president and it was Jimmy Carter who finally freed the slaves? You (or most of the audience) would immediately think "WTF?!"

Bread and Circuses.

Slaves on TV.

No? No.

But I get your point and I still think I have seen something similar... There was an episode of Voyagers where slavery persisted, but not quite on the button, is it?

 

[henbane]

What would you think if the VOY (or other Trek) writers wanted to tell a story where Abraham Lincoln was never president and it was Jimmy Carter who finally freed the slaves? You (or most of the audience) would immediately think "WTF?!"

Nope - I'd think different timeline, parallel, mirror universe or similar. It's science FICTION - why on earth would you want it to reflect reality all the time? That would be very unimaginative, boring and miss the entire point of being fiction ie escapism!

 

[Guy Gardener]

Wait? I was supposed to escape? When the frakk was I supposed to escape!!??

 

[AuntKate]

What would you think if the VOY (or other Trek) writers wanted to tell a story where Abraham Lincoln was never president and it was Jimmy Carter who finally freed the slaves? You (or most of the audience) would immediately think "WTF?!"

TNG writers did that with Mark Twain when he traveled into the future to walk around on the "Enterprise," so I wouldn't single out Voyager for such criticism. When I saw Twain, I did think "WTF" immediately followed by "awesome." Of course it isn't historical, but it is creative and innovative to imagine such "what ifs." I think that is part of what makes scifi so interesting, but I understand that it isn't everyone's cup of tea.

Perhaps I am a bit more tolerant because Twain himself made use of time travel in his novel, "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court."

 

[JanewayRulz!]

What would you think if the VOY (or other Trek) writers wanted to tell a story where Abraham Lincoln was never president and it was Jimmy Carter who finally freed the slaves? You (or most of the audience) would immediately think "WTF?!"

TNG writers did that with Mark Twain when he traveled into the future to walk around on the "Enterprise," so I wouldn't single out Voyager for such criticism. When I saw Twain, I did think "WTF" immediately followed by "awesome." Of course it isn't historical, but it is creative and innovative to imagine such "what ifs." I think that is part of what makes scifi so interesting, but I understand that it isn't everyone's cup of tea.

Perhaps I am a bit more tolerant because Twain himself made use of time travel in his novel, "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court."

So, its HIS fault that we have all these time travel stories?

 

[Guy Gardener]

NO, because Sam mentioned that book while in the future during the episode.

He'd already written it.

I'm more impressed with the irirresponsible treatment of Berlinghoff Rassmussen when they thought he was from the future.

 

[exodus]

The main problem is that the Millennium Gate obviously doesn't exist in our universe, nor did the writers have reason to suspect it would. That places Trek outside our universe and, thus, makes it much less interesting or relevant to us as viewers.

I am guessing that you dislike "The City on the Edge of Forever" because Helen Keeler "doesn't exist in our universe" either, and you don't like "The Wrath of Kahn" because Kahn "doesn't exist in our universe." And the "Little Green Men," if they existed, probably weren't Ferengi, etc. Disliking a Star Trek episode because the writers take liberties with current history is just a bit too precious for me. Fact is, Star Trek doesn't "really" exist in our universe, either, except, of course, as the figment of some very fertile imaginations.

Just sayin'.

Yes but you yourself have stated that 7/C upsets you very much to the point you feel it's ruined the characters completely simply over the fact they dated. If "doesn't exist in our universe" can be laughed off as fiction and is work of very fertile imaginations, then the same applies or should apply 7/C as well because that doesn't ruin anything due being it's fiction as well.

Just sayin'.