Unfortunately you are mistaken. The finale was canon. The books are not. Don't make us sic Christopher on you
ENT: Daedalus by Dave Stern Review Thread (Spoilers)
- Thread starter Defcon
- Start date
Unfortunately you are mistaken. The finale was canon. The books are not. Don't make us sic Christopher on you
"Canon" means the stories told by the creators or producers. That's all. What individuals choose to count as "real" in their own minds is another thing altogether, and should be described by a different word.
Although I have to admit, the word has been appropriated so thoroughly as a synonym for "personal continuity" that it's pretty much a losing battle. Even I was tempted to use the word "headcanon" for something the other day.
Although I have to admit, the word has been appropriated so thoroughly as a synonym for "personal continuity" that it's pretty much a losing battle. Even I was tempted to use the word "headcanon" for something the other day.
Federation: The First 150 Years focuses - as the name suggests - on Earth's history.
It sketches the effects of WWIII and how the surviving governments hedge out a cease-fire to find some sort of peace. When the Vulcans arrive, the Human diplomats are at their mercy, but the Vulcans apply a kind but firm hand of parenting on the wayward child Humanity, leading to gradual unification.
I'll have to check Daedalus for the physical description. I remember it didn't fit the Daedalus, but if the class was indeed just refitted, than it could be prototype!
It sketches the effects of WWIII and how the surviving governments hedge out a cease-fire to find some sort of peace. When the Vulcans arrive, the Human diplomats are at their mercy, but the Vulcans apply a kind but firm hand of parenting on the wayward child Humanity, leading to gradual unification.
I'll have to check Daedalus for the physical description. I remember it didn't fit the Daedalus, but if the class was indeed just refitted, than it could be prototype!
Finished reading it and its follow-up. I felt that it was a great character story for Trip.
That vessel could have been 95% complete before the war already. Plus, cobbling together a warp engine doesn't appear to require much of an industry, as long as one has a supply of parts from a civilization that used to have an industry...
OTOH, the exchange can't have been too major, since so many of the major cities are intact in various TNG, DS9 and VOY episodes. That is, we see that their old architecture survives till the 24th century, and that can't be because the old buildings were rebuilt true to their original form (rusty fire ladders and all) because the buildings now coexist with modern ones, defeating any attempt at "preservation" or "restoration" of an ancient milieu.
Perhaps the war utterly leveled Cairo, Mexico City, Beijing and Sao Paulo while leaving small towns like San Francisco, Boston, New Orleans and Paris untouched..?
As for Daedalus and her children, I liked the little touches that set the story apart from generic TOS or TNG (or, worse still, generic Trek) stories - the bits that indicated 22nd century uncertainty and/or arrogance about Man's place in space. And yes, I do like to think that the titular vessel was also the lead ship of a class that was subsequently put to very different uses...
Timo Saloniemi
I dunno about that, but Trip Tucker stated in "Storm Front" that the New York City of an alternate 1944 was different than what he was used to, so presumably at least New York City survived World War III (mostly) intact.
I believe The Sundered established that most of the nuclear strikes in WWIII were aerial, causing devastating EMP that would've destroyed cities' technological infrastructure but left the buildings mostly intact. Although the Strange New Worlds story "The Immortality Blues," expanding on that novel's portrayal of WWIII from the perspective of Flint the immortal, shows that at least a portion of Manhattan suffered major destruction.
What we know for sure (unless a character is lying or mistaken) is Riker's testimony that, as of 2063, "most of the major cities have been destroyed", and there are "600,000,000 dead". Are these two things interconnected or not? Might be that warfare somewhere in the Third World accounts for 90% of the death toll, while the First World was protected by technology. And as of today, "major cities" mainly exist outside the First World.
Then again, Riker also says that "there are few governments left". Does that mean that the First World governments survive and now rule sovereign, either over the entire globe or then over their islands of civilization on a lawless globe? We know that by the time of the war, First World was already united to some degree, perhaps under "few" governments to begin with.
Timo Saloniemi
Then again, Riker also says that "there are few governments left". Does that mean that the First World governments survive and now rule sovereign, either over the entire globe or then over their islands of civilization on a lawless globe? We know that by the time of the war, First World was already united to some degree, perhaps under "few" governments to begin with.
Timo Saloniemi
Interestingly, although that's a staggering number and would be a tragedy by any measure... it's only about 8.6% of the current global population. Estimates seem to point to a global population of 9 billion by 2050, which would put that stated death toll around 6.7%. For comparison, the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic is estimated to have killed around 3 - 6% of the world's population.
So, yeah, it seems Trek's WWIII was nowhere near as devastating as one would think a global nuclear exchange would be. (Unless maybe Trek's Earth already had a lower population due to the Eugenics Wars or something?)
The problem with Riker's statement that most major cities have been destroyed is that every time we see an Earth city in Trek, it still has familiar present-day landmarks. Granted, not that many have been seen onscreen -- all I can think of are San Francisco and London -- but the Earth of the future has never really been shown to have any major scars from WWIII, and the only mention of any urban area from the present day no longer existing in the future is Janeway's line about a portion of Los Angeles sinking beneath the sea in "Future's End," which would've been the result of an earthquake rather than a war. So there's a definite inconsistency here -- unless all those destroyed cities were rebuilt exactly as they'd been before, which is a pretty silly premise. (They didn't rebuild the World Trade Center towers, they replaced them with an entirely different building.)
...Which is why I prefer to think that by the 2050s, the cities we saw had lost their "major city" status, as others sped past and far ahead of them.
Interestingly, the fact that there are 9 billion people on Earth in ST:FC is made to sound as if this were unusual - even before we learn that these people are Borg Drones. But we don't learn whether the true count as of the 2370s should be higher or lower than that, much less what the situation would have been back in 2063.
Would the Borg seek to increase the population from the supposed assimilation date of 2063, or lower it, or stabilize it (considering that the Drones are more or less immortal and normally don't breed)?
Another interesting aspect from the new movies is the presence of densely packed nightmare cities and vast arcologies, where the corresponding original timeline had a sparsely populated San Francisco and, in TMP, one even less urbanized than today. Might the implication be that future population control methods allow for vast variation within a generation? Politics, fashion or religion would be the driving force; cloning, immigration and emigration the primary means (although various ways for removing people might exist in addition to emigration - say, putting them in stasis in wait for a happier future, or sending them to the past, or whatever).
Perhaps after the divergence in 2233, people became more wary of leaving Earth and hence the population boomed? Or immigration skyrocketed, or fifteen-child families became fashionable all of a sudden. Or perhaps people just chose urban lives over rural ones, and the total population in both timelines is more or less the same.
Timo Saloniemi
Interestingly, the fact that there are 9 billion people on Earth in ST:FC is made to sound as if this were unusual - even before we learn that these people are Borg Drones. But we don't learn whether the true count as of the 2370s should be higher or lower than that, much less what the situation would have been back in 2063.
Would the Borg seek to increase the population from the supposed assimilation date of 2063, or lower it, or stabilize it (considering that the Drones are more or less immortal and normally don't breed)?
Another interesting aspect from the new movies is the presence of densely packed nightmare cities and vast arcologies, where the corresponding original timeline had a sparsely populated San Francisco and, in TMP, one even less urbanized than today. Might the implication be that future population control methods allow for vast variation within a generation? Politics, fashion or religion would be the driving force; cloning, immigration and emigration the primary means (although various ways for removing people might exist in addition to emigration - say, putting them in stasis in wait for a happier future, or sending them to the past, or whatever).
Perhaps after the divergence in 2233, people became more wary of leaving Earth and hence the population boomed? Or immigration skyrocketed, or fifteen-child families became fashionable all of a sudden. Or perhaps people just chose urban lives over rural ones, and the total population in both timelines is more or less the same.
Timo Saloniemi
Depends which version of you watch. The TMP-DE version of San Francisco doesn't look much different to the one in the new movieverse.Timo said:
"Nightmare cities" is an exaggeration. Sure, Abrams's San Francisco and London are pretty cluttered with skyscrapers, but not much worse than, say, Midtown Manhattan or Dubai or Singapore. It's arguably a realistic projection of the increasing growth of cities today. Which, contrary to old fictional tropes, isn't necessarily a dystopian prediction, since city-dwellers often tend to be more cosmopolitan and inclusive, have better access to education and medical care, etc. than others.
And yes, Abrams's San Francisco and London are lit somewhat gloomily compared to how we're used to seeing San Francisco in other Trek productions, but that's arguably a more realistic reflection of the typical weather conditions in those cities.
And yes, Abrams's San Francisco and London are lit somewhat gloomily compared to how we're used to seeing San Francisco in other Trek productions, but that's arguably a more realistic reflection of the typical weather conditions in those cities.
And to look at an entirely different franchise, in the SW milieu, Courscant is one big multi-level city, but not particularly dystopian. (If I remember right, so is one of the planets in ADF's stand-alone tongue-in-cheek romp, Glory Lane; if memory serves, it's the planet Alvin.)
Neelix also mentioned in "11:59" that the Millenium gate was visible from Earth orbit with the naked eye and was the proto-type for self-contained structures, but maybe others were built on Earth and they were the cities that were destroyed, thus saving the old infrastructures. Considering that it's bas was 3.2km wide and tower part was 1km tall, there would be lots of room for even a million people.
Similar threads
- Poll
