Yet it had been stated many times, on both TOS and TNG, that record-keeping from that era was at best incomplete, and unreliable. And there is no reference to her having done the research you speak of. She may have taken the revelation in the holonovel at face value, even if records contradicting it were readily available.
These are the Voyages...spoiler
- Thread starter Zane1108
- Start date
- Status
Many times? No, the only time I can think of that this was ever mentioned was in "Space Seed," and Spock was referring to the 1990's not the 2160's. And for having "incomplete" and "unreliable" information, Riker's holodeck program sure was amazingly accurate in its presentation of the NX-01 crew and the NX-01's surroundings. Those people looked, talked, and acted just like they did in the 22nd century.
There didn't need to be a reference. I don't have to do any research to know that Abraham Lincoln was shot and killed in Ford's Theater. That was something I learned in the course of my life. This is no different. If someone was reenacting Lincoln's life, then he better end up dead in that theater, because that's how he died in real life. So if Riker was reenacting the events taking place on the NX-01 before the founding of the Federation, then Tucker better die in the manner he did, because that's how he died in the "real life" of Star Trek. And TATV never once gave the impression that it was a "holonovel" (i.e. that it was just a fictitious story about the NX-01 crew), and gave every indication that these events actually happened.
And before I make a huge deal out of this, I'd like to say that I'm not sticking up for TATV, or the silly way Trip died. I think TATV is a pile of garbage, but its writers and producers did not intend for it to be a fictitious holodeck fantasy.
But not Star Trek people. They are always perfect and know all about history, can identify poetry, classical music and art and have read the literature of a hundred worlds.
Um … Who wants to tell him?
(If you're being sly, Dukhat, then I congratulate you for a grand subtle joke and apologize for spoiling it.)
First, given the nature of technology shown within the context of the show, this can be, at best, a work of historical fiction.
Second, you may know the fate of Abe Lincoln, but I doubt you know the fate of his cabinet. I'll bet you could survey friends and coworkers as to the length of the recent Democratic super majority (something well within current memory), and few would come close to the real answer (hint: it's not two years).
^Third, the doubt cast on Trip's demise is a symptom of what is wrong with TATV: nothing happens in the 22nd century.
I'll tell him;
Dukhat, Lincoln didn't die until after they got him back to the White House. He may have been shot in Ford's Theater, but he didn't die there.
Dukhat, Lincoln didn't die until after they got him back to the White House. He may have been shot in Ford's Theater, but he didn't die there.
Except it wasn't referred to as such in the episode. It was implied if not downright stated that these events actually happened (minus Riker's contribution).
Not seeing your point here. If I wanted to know the fate of Lincoln's cabinet, I could Google that info in a minute. If Troi wanted to know the fate of Charles "Trip" Tucker III, she could have done the same thing with Google 24th Century Version (TM).
While there's lots wrong with TATV, I'm not understanding what you mean here.
Yep, that was my f-up. But thanks to Nebusj for thinking I was more sly than I actually was
The Peterson house, across the street. Lincoln's handlers wanted him removed from Ford's Theater to die --- feeling it'd be improper for a President to die in a place as base as a theater --- but the White House, some six or seven blocks away, was impossibly far to move without the act of moving him killing him. (It's difficult to exaggerate how awful American streets and roads were before the U.S. Highway system of the 1920s.) The boarding house was the best of the nearby options.
Yep, that was my f-up. But thanks to Nebusj for thinking I was more sly than I actually was
Not seeing your point here. If I wanted to know the fate of Lincoln's cabinet, I could Google that info in a minute. If Troi wanted to know the fate of Charles "Trip" Tucker III, she could have done the same thing with Google 24th Century Version (TM).
This illustrates my point: ordinary people make errors about historical facts on a regular basis. The more that the facts concern a peripheral personality, the more likely errors will be made. Given where Troi's expertise lie, it's reasonable to assume that she got her facts about Trip's death from the very program that is playing on the holodeck. Indeed, Thucydides, the inventor of then historical narrative, made errors about events at which he was present.
You mean that those were the exact words that Trip spoke? Who was the witness? Was a stenographic record of Tucker's testimony taken before he died in sickbay? How do we know all those people went to talk to chef at that time in the kitchen? Were T'Pol's feelings about Shran preserved in the record word for word?
I could go down the list of everything in the episode that cannot be a historical fact. The program could not have been written such as it was without extrapolations and assumptions. That's what makes in fiction.
All the action in the episode takes place in the 24the century. Riker goes into a room. He watches lights dance around and force fields manipulate space. He dons a costume. He talks with Troi. Everything that appears to happen in the 22nd century is an illusion that is, at best, partially informed by the historical record. The last episode to take place in the 22nd century was Demons/Terra Prime, not TATV.
Let's put it in a historical context, this was the final Voyage of the NX-01, right before the Federation is inagurated. We are talking about 200 years later, by which time it be taught in History Class at School. Sure the holodeck recreation might not be 100% accurate when it comes to things about what was said, but we know from TSFS that there might exists CCTV footage. Phlox's autopsy report would have give Trips cause of death, I'm sure Reed would have done an Investigation as well. So there would be various reports on which to draw upon to create a recreation.
I could point out for example that Admiral Lord Nelson was shot by Musket during the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 he later died from those wounds but the battle was won.
History can also affect how people are viewed, in there time they might not be viewed as that important, but after their death that view might change.
I could point out for example that Admiral Lord Nelson was shot by Musket during the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 he later died from those wounds but the battle was won.
History can also affect how people are viewed, in there time they might not be viewed as that important, but after their death that view might change.
My error was with the location where Lincoln died, not that he actually died or not. Do you think Troi went to Riker the next day and said, "Boy, I feel like an idiot. Remember yesterday when I said that Trip died? Well, it turns out he didn't die at all at that incident and instead lived for 50 more years!" No, that's doubtful.
Troi commented that Trip died during this period. Riker did not correct her. Therefore, that's when he died.
Why not? This is Star Trek, for crying out loud. It's science fiction. In that context I could come up with numerous ways to justify the accuracy of the program. Perhaps 24th century Federation historians went back through time and installed cloaked cameras all over the NX-01 to get an accurate historical record of what happened back then. That's no more implausible in the universe of ST than any other way of getting the info.
I agree with that assessment. But I was not arguing that these events were taking place in the 22nd century, but rather that the writers and producers of the show were implying that they were an accurate representation of the events that did.
It is implausible, considering it would have been a massive violation of human rights.
There's a scene in TATV that takes place in Trip's private quarters (T'Pol packing his belongings). A place where he slept, rested, read books, likely masturbated on more that one occasion and quite possibly engaged in sexual intercourse with willing shipmates (like T'Pol and such).
You really think future historians would consider planting hidden surveillance cameras in people's bedrooms? UFP and Starfleet pride themselves with high ethical and moral values / standards, yet you think they'd resort to something as appalling and perverted as that?
We have no idea what future historians' morals are. Apparently they are at least immoral enough to have their own people as part of the crew of the ship (Daniels) and not tell anyone. As far as it being a violation of human rights, to their frame of mind, those humans had been dead for centuries. Violating their rights now was moot. Perhaps they felt that recording peoples' intimate moments was a small price to pay for getting a historically accurate record from that period of time.
Last edited:
We have. Historians are unlikely to be exempt from the moral and ethical codes of the society they live in. That society is UFP, a highly advanced, liberal and progressive democratic super-state. Star Trek has been around for nearly half a century, and by know, we've gotten a pretty good idea about the morals of the future it depicts.
Daniels is a spy, a covert operative working for a fraction that's waging a cold war. Spies aren't exactly known to be scrupulous. Sloan, anyone?
So if a time traveler beamed into your bathroom while you were showering, took some photos and told you to go fuck yourself, you wouldn't have felt violated, because this person wasn't even born yet and to it you'd been dead for centuries?
Now you're suggesting that 24th century Federation scientists abide by ethical standards only when those standards don't get in the way of their research...
Which makes me wonder just how much of Star Trek you've actually seen... I mean, it's not like every other episode deals with ethical issues and dilemmas or anything...
Well, perhaps we should suspend a general acceptance of the refined and exceptional ethical plane that the 24th century UFP embodied and consider that a more sober, nuanced understanding of the impact of temporal incursions was only fully arrived at by the time the Accords were promulgated. This enhanced awareness allowed for rigourously vetted and conducted work (allegedly at least) such as the Giza research of which Daniels offered a brief glimpse.
While that is most likely true, that still doesn't mean that that society isn't guilty of underhanded and unethical actions. Section 31, which you yourself brought up, is a perfect example.
But let's be real here: Do I truly believe that 24th century historians would do such unethical things? Of course not. But just because I believe that doesn't mean that some writer penning a script would feel the same way. That was my original point: This is just a fictional show we're talking about, not based in any kind of reality.
While Daniels himself wasn't a historian, he made it clear that there were historians that were visiting other times.
Of course, I'd feel exceptionally violated. But if the person doing the violating didn't care about my feelings because to his perspective I'm just some historical curiosity, then there'd be little I could do about it.So if a time traveler beamed into your bathroom while you were showering, took some photos and told you to go fuck yourself, you wouldn't have felt violated, because this person wasn't even born yet and to it you'd been dead for centuries?
As I said, what I know about Star Trek has nothing to do with this discussion. When I was originally watching TNG, if someone told me that in a few years Picard would be driving dune buggies like Mario Andretti, I'd have said that they didn't know what the hell they were talking about, because the character of Picard as established in TNG would never have done any such thing. And yet there he is, in Nemesis, doing exactly that.
I'm not going to belabor this any further, because it's sounding like I'm trying to defend TATV when in reality I hate it, and if TPTB came out tomorrow and stated that it was nothing more than Riker's holodeck fantasy, then I'd be the first to applaud that decision. All I'm saying is that due to the (science-)fictitious nature of the show, justifications can still be made for anything we see.
But of course it wasn't the finale to all of Star Trek because we got more Star Trek
However, the show runners might very well have seen it that way at the time. Even if not, wouldn't their perception have likely been that their own involvement in the franchise was over?
This entry coming to a dismally (by the numbers) premature end. The previous effort, whatever the breakdown of its critical merits, not accomplishing becoming a successful flagbearer for a new network, an enterprise (sorry) that however illusory the goal may have been in hindsight, certainly had to have been seen as feasible in the planning scenarios of some of the bean counters. The movies, at this point widely viewed as being ensconsed in financial and creative sludge. It would seem reasonable that the administration would have viewed this as their last production statement on the Trek stage.
If that follows, why not have the statement essentially be an encapsulation of what this regime contributed to the totality of Trek? Perhaps, not exactly in the manner of a baldly obsequious paean to themsleves. I will take at face value Berman's comments about the genesis of the story idea as recounted in the recent anniversary piece. http://www.startrek.com/article/these-are-the-voyages-nine-years-later
Putting a bow on Enterprise by accentuating the centrality of the crew and their mission, even if that might have fittingly circled the continuity train back to a reiteration of the tenets of TOS, would not have served as a valedictory to the creative crew's long stewardship of that legacy. No, it would need to be in the realm of the easily referential, tied to images and strands that would reinforce the history of how they elevated the franchise. Who else would do it, have the imprimatur to say farewell in this way? When could it have ever been done anyway, if not then?
The fact only 1 hour was given to the event meant that concomitantly, only a truncated core of such a recounting could be shoehorned in and the specific prism chosen would have inevitably drawn scorn from some, if not most, quarters. That seems something like collateral damage owing to circumstance though. That this marker did not tell a smaller story well or alternately, aspired boldly to echo the outsize vision of the franchise's creator does not really seem all that surprising or out of place.
Perhaps the details of Archer and T'Pol's convo in Trip's quarters was from Admiral Archer's memoirs, or something like that. There's no need to assume they really were recording every second of the mission.
Remember, according to Gene Roddenberry himself in his novelization of TMP, the TOS we saw was a heavily dramatized version of the five-year mission. Writing in the first person as Kirk, he writes "Eventually, I found that I had been fictionalized into some sort of 'modern Ulysses' ... nor have I been so foolishly courageous as depicted..."
That said, it was clearly the intent of the story that what we saw in TATV was what "really" happened on the final mission of the Enterprise in 2161. But there is a lot of wiggle room for other interpretations (as seen in Pocket's The Good That Men Do)
Remember, according to Gene Roddenberry himself in his novelization of TMP, the TOS we saw was a heavily dramatized version of the five-year mission. Writing in the first person as Kirk, he writes "Eventually, I found that I had been fictionalized into some sort of 'modern Ulysses' ... nor have I been so foolishly courageous as depicted..."
That said, it was clearly the intent of the story that what we saw in TATV was what "really" happened on the final mission of the Enterprise in 2161. But there is a lot of wiggle room for other interpretations (as seen in Pocket's The Good That Men Do)
My favorite interpretation is the one where it was shit.
- Status
Similar threads
