Which is not to say they weren't going to let anyone develop the character at some point, but a "B-4 becomes Data" storyline might not necessarily be a shipboard adventure.
Countdown/Novels
- Thread starter phrog
- Start date
Which is not to say they weren't going to let anyone develop the character at some point, but a "B-4 becomes Data" storyline might not necessarily be a shipboard adventure.
Regarding naming timelines, maybe a leaf could be taken from the Transformers playbook, regarding how they devise terms for various timelines - or universal streams - in that multiverse.
Assuming one could create a viable indicator for certain Trek-type universes (one for 'regular' timelines, another for 'mirror' universes, and what have you) to go in place of the terms that TF-verses use (such as Primax for G1 and Tyran for the more recent Movie-verse) to start with, that is.
(To give TF examples, the 2007 movie's timeline is Tyran 707.04 Delta, while Primax 984.0 Gamma is that of the universal stream depicted in the Marvel Comics US run.)
Assuming one could create a viable indicator for certain Trek-type universes (one for 'regular' timelines, another for 'mirror' universes, and what have you) to go in place of the terms that TF-verses use (such as Primax for G1 and Tyran for the more recent Movie-verse) to start with, that is.
(To give TF examples, the 2007 movie's timeline is Tyran 707.04 Delta, while Primax 984.0 Gamma is that of the universal stream depicted in the Marvel Comics US run.)
After reading the whole thing today, I'm convinced that...
...the Narada and Spock didn't just travel through time, but ended up in an entirely different timeline. Timelines in Trek have almost universally been depicted (for drama's sake) as singular; go back in time and mess with something, the present as we know it is ruined. However, in this case, Picard, Data, Geordi, and the Enterprise appeared to be unaffected by whatever happened. Their history appears to be unaltered.
A "B-4 becomes anything" storyline most likely wouldn't be a shipboard adventure. He's not in Starfleet. He's not a scientist. He's not a family member of a crewperson. There is no reason for B-4 to remain aboard a Starfleet vessel.
It's not that unambiguous.
As I believe I already said earlier in this thread, many of those instances of the present being "overwritten" could simply be the subjective perception of the observers as they move from one timeline to another. True, sometimes it does appear that one timeline ceases to exist, but scientifically speaking, that's nonsense, whereas the idea of coexisting alternate timelines is solidly rooted in real quantum physics.
Star Trek has had plenty of interesting characters on Federation ships who weren't members of Starfleet. Guinan, Kes, Neelix, Seven of Nine, the Maquis, T'Pol... Personally, I think it gets a bit cliche when the cast can be defined by their positions - engineer, doctor, helmsman, etc. I see no problem with having other non-Feds as characters. And I beg to differ on the 'B-4 is not family' argument. He was Data's brother as much as it's possible for him to have a brother... or at the very least, his semi-retarded cousin. I find the "he reminded the crew too much of Data so they decided to get rid of him" angle a bit harsh. I think the opposite angle could have been played up well - say for example, Geordi wanting desperately for B-4 to fill a part of Data's shoes that he's just not capable of.
Bar manager.
Rescued guests.
Official observer.
But a planet-based laboratory might be a more appropriate venue for such experimentation.
if they bring back Data I'm back to only reading NF. seriously. they will lose me as a reader if they bring him back, especially through some dumbass B4 story.
i'll even quit reading VGD because there's always a possibility he or resurrected Janeway could wind up time-travelling back.
i'll even quit reading VGD because there's always a possibility he or resurrected Janeway could wind up time-travelling back.
Something I'm curious about: Looking at the new movie's explanation of time travel and coexisting timelines as a model, did the Borg and the crew of the Enterprise-E create a divergent timeline when they travelled back to 2063 in First Contact? And what about the Temporal Cold War on Enterprise that led to, among other things, the Xindi devastating Earth in the 22nd century? If the new movie is anything to go by, this means there were already a couple of different realities branching off from one another before Nero came along! One question though, when the Enterprise disappeared at the end of First Contact, did they go back to their home 24th century, or did they end up in the 24th century of the new timeline they'd just created?
Star Trek has played it both ways -- that there's a single timeline that can be changed, or there are multiple branching timelines. The time travel logic for "City on the Edge" makes no sense in a "Parallels" multiverse, while in a "Parallels" multiverse, "Yesterday's Enterprise" doesn't make any sense.
By the "Parallels" or Star Trek XI logic, Picard and company didn't return to their own timeline in First Contact; they returned to a similar timeline, and the Borg-conquered Earth still exists in the multiverse.
We don't know that, since we don't know how that chronovortex or whatever the hell it was actually worked. It could've sent them back to the timeline they came from.
The whole multi-verse angle just doesn't seem as interesting. If I know my timeline is safe, what do I care if someone goes back and sets themselves up as king of humanity in the year 4000 BC?
Hell, the entire Temporal Cold War would be pointless. Not that I'd have any problems with that.
There'd be no reason for that bureau of temporal investigations to exist either.
Sweet Jesus, no. The character of Geordi La Forge has enough problems; to portray him as being so emotionally crippled that he'd need a duplicate Data in his life is really just too pathetic to even contemplate.
And while B-4 may have been considered Data's family, he was not, and never could be, part of the Enterprise family. The show already addressed a similar situation with Tasha Yar's sister -- as much as the crew may have wanted Ishara to be like Tasha, and as much as Ishara may have envied the relationship Tasha had with the crew, she was a completely different person, and had to live her own life her own way.
On the timeline thing: I have my own theories for how to reconcile the "overwriting history" model with the Many Worlds model, but it's all too complicated and niggly, and the really right explanation is:
Don't worry about it. Time travel follows whatever rules best serve the story. It's ultimately a fantasy conceit; by real physics, you probably couldn't travel through time anyway, and if you could, you'd be compelled to re-enact your existing timeline and could never enter another one. So it's just a device for telling a tale. If the story needs it to work a certain way, then that's how it works. Just accept that and the headache will go away.
All those people served purposes aboard the ship. B-4 is a toddler. Or perhaps a better analogy is an adult with a severe learning disability. Not only can he contribute nothing aboard a starship, but a starship is not a safe or constructive environment for him. It makes much more sense for him to be under the care of the Daystrom Institute.
As a side point: you seem to be using "Federation" and "Starfleet" interchangeably, which is a tendency that troubles me. They're not synonyms any more than "United States" and "US Navy" are synonyms. Starfleet is an organization that serves the United Federation of Planets. Most people in the Federation have nothing whatsoever to do with Starfleet. I never said anything about whether B-4 is a Federation citizen; indeed, by the Federation Council ruling of October 2380, I'd say he is. But just because someone's a Federation citizen doesn't mean there's a good reason for him to serve aboard a Starfleet ship of the line, any more than just being a United States citizen is a good reason for someone to take up space aboard a Navy aircraft carrier.
Valid from a sentimental standpoint, but not from a practical standpoint. Data is no longer a member of the Enterprise crew. Therefore, B-4 is not technically or legally a family member of anyone aboard. Again, B-4 is functionally a child. Imagine if Miles and Keiko O'Brien had died rather than leaving for DS9. Would you have argued that their baby daughter should've been kept aboard the Enterprise, rather than sent off to live with her grandparents?
Did anyone ever say that happened? They were ordered to disassemble B-4 and deliver him to the Daystrom Institute -- and it's worth noting that he was kept onboard for five whole months before that happened. Now, in Greater Than the Sum, Geordi did express the opinion that he didn't fight hard enough to stop it because he'd grown frustrated with B-4's failure to be like Data, but that was guilt speaking as much as anything, and it's not the same as "decid[ing] to get rid of him."
That's pretty much why Geordi kept him around for those five months between Nemesis and Resistance, trying to bring out some glimmer of something Data-like, without success.
More than a couple. See "Parallels." There are millions, at least. The number of potential alternate timelines arising from either time travel or spontaneous quantum divergence is unbounded (which doesn't mean infinite -- just that there's no limit on how many there could be).
Logically, they'd end up in a new timeline very similar to their old one. But dramatically, it's always assumed to be the same one. I rationalize this by assuming that if two timelines are similar enough, they can merge together into one.
Don't worry about it. Time travel follows whatever rules best serve the story. It's ultimately a fantasy conceit; by real physics, you probably couldn't travel through time anyway, and if you could, you'd be compelled to re-enact your existing timeline and could never enter another one. So it's just a device for telling a tale. If the story needs it to work a certain way, then that's how it works. Just accept that and the headache will go away.
All those people served purposes aboard the ship. B-4 is a toddler. Or perhaps a better analogy is an adult with a severe learning disability. Not only can he contribute nothing aboard a starship, but a starship is not a safe or constructive environment for him. It makes much more sense for him to be under the care of the Daystrom Institute.
As a side point: you seem to be using "Federation" and "Starfleet" interchangeably, which is a tendency that troubles me. They're not synonyms any more than "United States" and "US Navy" are synonyms. Starfleet is an organization that serves the United Federation of Planets. Most people in the Federation have nothing whatsoever to do with Starfleet. I never said anything about whether B-4 is a Federation citizen; indeed, by the Federation Council ruling of October 2380, I'd say he is. But just because someone's a Federation citizen doesn't mean there's a good reason for him to serve aboard a Starfleet ship of the line, any more than just being a United States citizen is a good reason for someone to take up space aboard a Navy aircraft carrier.
Valid from a sentimental standpoint, but not from a practical standpoint. Data is no longer a member of the Enterprise crew. Therefore, B-4 is not technically or legally a family member of anyone aboard. Again, B-4 is functionally a child. Imagine if Miles and Keiko O'Brien had died rather than leaving for DS9. Would you have argued that their baby daughter should've been kept aboard the Enterprise, rather than sent off to live with her grandparents?
Did anyone ever say that happened? They were ordered to disassemble B-4 and deliver him to the Daystrom Institute -- and it's worth noting that he was kept onboard for five whole months before that happened. Now, in Greater Than the Sum, Geordi did express the opinion that he didn't fight hard enough to stop it because he'd grown frustrated with B-4's failure to be like Data, but that was guilt speaking as much as anything, and it's not the same as "decid[ing] to get rid of him."
That's pretty much why Geordi kept him around for those five months between Nemesis and Resistance, trying to bring out some glimmer of something Data-like, without success.
More than a couple. See "Parallels." There are millions, at least. The number of potential alternate timelines arising from either time travel or spontaneous quantum divergence is unbounded (which doesn't mean infinite -- just that there's no limit on how many there could be).
Logically, they'd end up in a new timeline very similar to their old one. But dramatically, it's always assumed to be the same one. I rationalize this by assuming that if two timelines are similar enough, they can merge together into one.
"Yesteryear" kinda worked that way. Everything ends up the same as before, except for the precise year that Spock's pet died.
The tricky thing with that episode is that Spock, Kirk and Erickson end up in the timeline where Thelin was first officer, but only Spock goes through the Guardian to fix the timeline. Shouldn't Kirk and Erickson have followed him through to the Vulcan of Spock's youth?
(Not to mention the "Crucible" trilogy, where Ted Erickson and Crewman Bates have swapped places!)
Hey Vern! Come look at this other Star Trek universe.
Similar threads
