Technically, no timeline saw Annorax's epic failure. As soon as Janeway slammed Voyager into the timeship, everything rebooted. It never happened, and no one was around to remember what had happened before the reboot.
Future Janeway's fate.
- Thread starter ConRefit79
- Start date
Technically, no timeline saw Annorax's epic failure. As soon as Janeway slammed Voyager into the timeship, everything rebooted. It never happened, and no one was around to remember what had happened before the reboot.
When we see Annorax at end with his wife, is that from 200yrs in the past? His first officer said they had been trying to change the timeline for 200yrs.
It's never stated, but I would assume so. The point was to show what happened to Annorax because the ship didn't exist. The ship did a temporal incursion on itself, which means it erased itself from existence.
You think that would have done an incursion on everyone on board and that remaining parts of Voyager too.
The weapon was very precise despite it's size. They said it was creating an incusion on the ship itself. I don't see how that would place an incusion on anything else.
And there is even less reason to assume that her actions did not have positive consequences. My point is that the reaction to her action by the fans of Trek has more to do with whether they like the character of Kathryn Janeway or not, than to do with any kind of moral argument pro or con. There are no definitive answers only different points of view.
Brit
I'm sorry, but I find it more prudent to assume actions may cause harm than to assume they will not, and that has nothing to do with whether or not I like a Trek character.
In any case how is there -less- reason to assume her actions didn't have positive consequences? If anything there would seem to be equal reason, unless I'm missing something you'd care to bring to my attention.
Also, as an apparent fan of Janeway, you're tacitly acknowledging that you're more prone to assume her actions wouldn't have negative consequences.
In any case, I think we can both agree this is a situation where we don't have enough information to make a strong conclusion in either direction, just theorize. It's a shame that Admiral Janeway's future didn't seem to have suffered in any way from Voyager's delayed return. Much as in SG - Continuum Earth initially seems to be getting along just fine without the discovery of the Stargate. If things are going well enough (which I realize is a relative term), how can you justify tampering with them -without- knowing what the consequences may be? At least when Annorax was making the space-time continuum his personal toy he was apparently using advanced technology to project how things would turn out...but even then it wasn't fool-proof...or even Voyager-proof.
Hawthorne - Good point about the Voyager crew not encountering Annorax because of the Reset Button. I forgot about that. Raises the question of whether Endgame might have turned out differently if they had.
In any case how is there -less- reason to assume her actions didn't have positive consequences? If anything there would seem to be equal reason, unless I'm missing something you'd care to bring to my attention.
Also, as an apparent fan of Janeway, you're tacitly acknowledging that you're more prone to assume her actions wouldn't have negative consequences.
In any case, I think we can both agree this is a situation where we don't have enough information to make a strong conclusion in either direction, just theorize. It's a shame that Admiral Janeway's future didn't seem to have suffered in any way from Voyager's delayed return. Much as in SG - Continuum Earth initially seems to be getting along just fine without the discovery of the Stargate. If things are going well enough (which I realize is a relative term), how can you justify tampering with them -without- knowing what the consequences may be? At least when Annorax was making the space-time continuum his personal toy he was apparently using advanced technology to project how things would turn out...but even then it wasn't fool-proof...or even Voyager-proof.
Hawthorne - Good point about the Voyager crew not encountering Annorax because of the Reset Button. I forgot about that. Raises the question of whether Endgame might have turned out differently if they had.
Only that in general for a good number of years one could safely assume that the outcome of any Trek episode was always a Positive one. That at the ending of each episode the Galaxy was a better place.
Brit
That's not really information the characters are privy to though.
Of course, it was nothing the characters knew, it was however something the audience knew.
And again I said in General but I will also say the generality more closely follows TOS, NG and Voyager, while most of the exceptions to me were in DS9 and Enterprise. With DS9, I think the Galaxy was a better place at the ending of the story arcs rather than the individual episode and Enterprise always seemed darker to me.
Brit
Brit
The galaxy sure as hell wasn't a brighter place for the Cardassians at the end of DS9, but it certainly was for the Coalition members at the end of Enterprise.
The butterfly effect can have far-reaching consequences, the most recent example being Nero's altering the past in STXI and how different-yet-similar the next 25 years were (yeah, it was a reboot in disguise, but it counts). In "City on the Edge of Forever" saving one person in the past, Edith Keeler, led to a future where the Nazis won WWII. The best of intentions can have the most terrible consequences.
How many lives were altered by Janeway's jump to the past? Everyone on Voyager and every alien they met on their original 20+ year journey home. How many Edith Keelers died as a result of J's actions in the original future? We'll never know. But just like Spock didn't have the right to go back and "fix" the timeline in STXI (and thus "kill" Pine Kirk in favour of Shatner), IMO Janeway didn't in "Endgame". I still liked the episode
The butterfly effect can have far-reaching consequences, the most recent example being Nero's altering the past in STXI and how different-yet-similar the next 25 years were (yeah, it was a reboot in disguise, but it counts). In "City on the Edge of Forever" saving one person in the past, Edith Keeler, led to a future where the Nazis won WWII. The best of intentions can have the most terrible consequences.
How many lives were altered by Janeway's jump to the past? Everyone on Voyager and every alien they met on their original 20+ year journey home. How many Edith Keelers died as a result of J's actions in the original future? We'll never know. But just like Spock didn't have the right to go back and "fix" the timeline in STXI (and thus "kill" Pine Kirk in favour of Shatner), IMO Janeway didn't in "Endgame". I still liked the episode
How many lives were altered by Janeway's jump to the past? Everyone on Voyager and every alien they met on their original 20+ year journey home. How many Edith Keelers died as a result of J's actions in the original future? We'll never know. But just like Spock didn't have the right to go back and "fix" the timeline in STXI (and thus "kill" Pine Kirk in favour of Shatner), IMO Janeway didn't in "Endgame". I still liked the episode
Your opinion is ok, the point is why does the alterations have to be thought of as negative. You don't know, you assume they were negative. The butterfly effect works both ways.
Brit
How is it better to assume that changing the past is better than -not- changing the past? How does Janeway have the right to make this assumption? If she's so convinced of her beliefs why does she not even try discussing it with anyone else? Afraid someone would talk her out of it, perhaps?
No matter how much good she accomplished, her underlying motives had nothing to do with making things better for the galaxy, just saving her friends, and if countless planets suffered for her presumption, TS for them.
The more I think about it the more I think my comparison to Annorax is painfully apt, except that I almost think Annorax may have cared more about who he was impacting with his changes to the timeline.
No matter how much good she accomplished, her underlying motives had nothing to do with making things better for the galaxy, just saving her friends, and if countless planets suffered for her presumption, TS for them.
The more I think about it the more I think my comparison to Annorax is painfully apt, except that I almost think Annorax may have cared more about who he was impacting with his changes to the timeline.
Why are you so sure she changed her own timeline anyway, there are all kinds of spins you can put on anything both positive and negative. I choose to see this positively and you choose to see it negatively, and my opinion is just as valid as yours.
The only people I could see chasing her was The Doctor, Barclay, and Harry Kim not Starfleet. You don't know how Starfleet felt at all and you are shown that the concern from those that were trying to stop her was for her own safety not theirs.
Finally if I knew where to get a time machine and I felt like I needed it, I wouldn't be telling anyone myself. Not because I would be ashamed of what I was doing but rather to protect the machine I needed from being stolen from me.
Again your assumptions put Kathryn Janeway in a bad light. Bottom Line is why do you want to discount the character with negative assumptions?
The first fan fiction I wrote took Endgame, and without changing a single bit of dialogue or action, only adding thoughts and a few extra scenes, I changed the whole episode. I had a whole other set of assumptions. All of this is just point of view and it’s the point of view of the person watching the show.
Brit
I'm sorry, but I find it more prudent to assume actions may cause harm than to assume they will not, and that has nothing to do with whether or not I like a Trek character.
In any case how is there -less- reason to assume her actions didn't have positive consequences? If anything there would seem to be equal reason, unless I'm missing something you'd care to bring to my attention.
Also, as an apparent fan of Janeway, you're tacitly acknowledging that you're more prone to assume her actions wouldn't have negative consequences.
In any case, I think we can both agree this is a situation where we don't have enough information to make a strong conclusion in either direction, just theorize. .
Using the canon established in Voyager's 3rd season, and reinforced in its 5th season, I think we can honestly assume that Admiral Janeway's efforts to change the past were "positive". Simply because the Temporal Commission didn't send anyone back to Captain Janeway's ship to stop Admiral Janeway from sharing illicit technology.
The only planets that may have suffered were those not impacted upon by aborting Janeway/Voyager's journey at the end of its seventh year.
Speaking (obviously) as aJaneway fan, I think the comparison with Annorax is too harsh. Annorax studied intimately the histories of individual planets/cultures and destroyed them so early that they never existed. He even stopped for souveniers before he blotted their existence from the archives of history.
The elder Janeway did change time... but those planets /cultures did not die, they merely reset to the stage/time they were in at the year Voyager came home.
But debate as we may, I was serious when I suggested that Admiral Janeway was punished for her hubris. She DID commit a crime as far as Starfleet was concerned, she meddled with time and she died for her sins. Not only did she die, she died without knowing if her heart's desire was achieved. In a way, the Admiral was like Kind David of old. Someone who was strong enough to win a nation for his people/God, but not sinless enough to build a temple for the Ark of God's Covenent.
I wonder, with all this talk of right and wrong, did you want Captain Janeway to ignore everything the Admiral said and continue on her merry way in the DQ so as NOT to change her own future?
For myself, I am glad she did not follow such a course. For like Picard in "A Matter of Time" each starship's Captain must make a choice.
[Picard's Ready Room]
PICARD: Of course, you know of the Prime Directive, which tells us that we have no right to interfere with the natural evolution of alien worlds. Now I have sworn to uphold it, but nevertheless I have disregarded that directive on more than one occasion because I thought it was the right thing to do. Now, if you are holding on to some temporal equivalent of that directive, then isn't it possible that you have an occasion here to make an exception, to help me to choose, because it's the right thing to do?
RASMUSSEN: We're not just talking about a choice. It sounds to me like you're trying to manipulate the future.
PICARD: Every choice we make allows us to manipulate the future. Do I ask Adrienne or Suzanne to the spring dance? Do I take my holiday on Corsica or on Risa? A person's life, their future, hinges on each of a thousand choices. Living is making choices. Now you ask me to believe that if I make a choice other than the one found in your history books, then your past will be irrevocably altered. Well, you know, Professor, perhaps I don't give a damn about your past, because your past is my future and as far as I'm concerned, it hasn't been written yet......
[Bridge of the Enterprise]
RASMUSSEN: So you've made your choice after all, and without my help.
PICARD: Oh, on the contrary, Professor, you were quite helpful.
RASMUSSEN: How's that?
PICARD: By refusing to assist me, you left me with the same choice I had to began with. To try or not to try, to take a risk or to play it safe. Your arguments have reminded me how precious the right to choose is. And because I've never been one to play it safe, I choose to try. Mister Data, program the firing sequence.
It was because of the Admiral's choices, and the Captain's too, that we could finally hear and believe this last line.
[Bridge of Voyager]
JANEWAY: Set a course, for home.
Though it would have been rather dissatisfying in a series finale, it might have shown strength of character if Captain Janeway had refused to alter the "proper flow of events" by getting Voyager home earlier. In any event, the ending as shown is dissatisfying to many viewers who wanted more of a resolution than simply "they get home." To the question of whether Admiral Janeway ultimately altered her timeline or an alternate - does it matter? The point would seem to be that Captain Janeway knew that following Admiral Janeway's advice meant acting against what was "supposed" to happen. Unless you want to try to argue that this was a predestination paradox.
You know, sometimes I'm left with the feeling that going up against outspoken fans of Janeway is as much of a pointless endeavor as going up against the harsher critics of the new movie. Nobody's opinion seems likely to change, and there ofter never seems to be any willingness to concede that Janeway even -might- have made a mistake. Nowhere have I said that Janeway -definitely- made things worse, I just refuse to whitewash her actions and ignore the glaring possibility that she -might- have.
In "Insurrection", Picard asks the Admiral who wants to relocate the Baku how many people need to be relocated before an action becomes wrong, regardless of the positive consequences of this relocation (and the relocation apparently could have positively affected a huge number of lives).
How many lives do Admiral Janeway's actions need to negatively affect before they become wrong? Is letting two planets dissolve into war because Voyager wasn't there to mediate enough reason? Preventing a planet's population from dying because the ship wasn't there to help develop a cure? We have -no- idea how much good Voyager may hae done, and just as it's impossible for me to say with certainty that Voyager's aborted journey had negative repercussions, it's reckless for the supporters of Janeway's actions to claim that there could be only positive repercussions. -We do not know-.
What -do- we know?
Janeway doesn't appear to have been motivated by a desire to improve things on a grand scale. The Federation appears to be doing just fine, and there's no mention of any significant problems being faced.
Janeway clearly acted without any sort of authority beyond her own self-righteousness and without any regard for those whom her actions might negatively impact.
Anyway, at least Annorax -did- gather souvenirs before wiping planets from the timeline. We have no reason to believe Janeway made similar efforts to memorialize potential victims of her decision. Perhaps we'd be better off if it had been explicitly stated that Janeway's time travel methodology would create an alternate timeline rather than overwriting what we'd seen.
Look, I'm really not trying to be an outspoken critic here, but I feel like I'm going up against a bit of a brick wall of refusal to acknowledge that what Janeway did could be anything but positive, yet with little information to support that hypothesis.
You know, sometimes I'm left with the feeling that going up against outspoken fans of Janeway is as much of a pointless endeavor as going up against the harsher critics of the new movie. Nobody's opinion seems likely to change, and there ofter never seems to be any willingness to concede that Janeway even -might- have made a mistake. Nowhere have I said that Janeway -definitely- made things worse, I just refuse to whitewash her actions and ignore the glaring possibility that she -might- have.
In "Insurrection", Picard asks the Admiral who wants to relocate the Baku how many people need to be relocated before an action becomes wrong, regardless of the positive consequences of this relocation (and the relocation apparently could have positively affected a huge number of lives).
How many lives do Admiral Janeway's actions need to negatively affect before they become wrong? Is letting two planets dissolve into war because Voyager wasn't there to mediate enough reason? Preventing a planet's population from dying because the ship wasn't there to help develop a cure? We have -no- idea how much good Voyager may hae done, and just as it's impossible for me to say with certainty that Voyager's aborted journey had negative repercussions, it's reckless for the supporters of Janeway's actions to claim that there could be only positive repercussions. -We do not know-.
What -do- we know?
Janeway doesn't appear to have been motivated by a desire to improve things on a grand scale. The Federation appears to be doing just fine, and there's no mention of any significant problems being faced.
Janeway clearly acted without any sort of authority beyond her own self-righteousness and without any regard for those whom her actions might negatively impact.
Anyway, at least Annorax -did- gather souvenirs before wiping planets from the timeline. We have no reason to believe Janeway made similar efforts to memorialize potential victims of her decision. Perhaps we'd be better off if it had been explicitly stated that Janeway's time travel methodology would create an alternate timeline rather than overwriting what we'd seen.
Look, I'm really not trying to be an outspoken critic here, but I feel like I'm going up against a bit of a brick wall of refusal to acknowledge that what Janeway did could be anything but positive, yet with little information to support that hypothesis.
DonIago, did you know that brick wall you speak of has been around since Voyager began, and believe me if the Janeway supporters built it, it was for our own self preservation.
I don't think anyone here, and me least of all would tell you that you didn't have the right to your opinion. What we are trying to say is that for every argument you give, we can take the same scene and turn it around. We use the same evidence that you are using, the very same, and yet see it completely different and neither opinion is wrong, it is simply personal. The Glass is half empty or half full and both are true statements.
The canon truth is that Janeway, Picard, Sisko, Kirk, and Archer are good captains and respected individuals by Star Fleet. We know this because the Star Trek Bible tells us who these characters are and how they are viewed.
Brit
The feeling I'm getting though, is that while I'm perfectly willing to admit that Janeway's actions may have had no negative repercussions, the Janeway-supporters (and as a gay guy I know something about how much stereotyping sucks, but this is the vibe I'm getting) aren't willing to similarly concede that Janeway's actions -may- have had negative repercussions.
And that's all I'm looking for. "Yeah, you're right, she may have seriously screwed up the galaxy just to help out her crew." Is that somehow a huge concession? I would think/hope that Janeway herself would grant my point...and if not, then I don't think she's fit to wear a Starfleet uniform. Nobody that self-righteous is.
Hell, it would be no different from the other captains. Kirk's impassioned speech in Mirror, Mirror led to the enslavement of humans. Picard was willing to let people die to defend the Prime Directive. Sisko's actions in ITPM could lead to who-knows-what if the Romulans ever found out. Archer deliberately disabled a ship of innocent aliens just to help Earth. None of these people are without their flaws, and neither is Janeway, so to see (and I'll grant this isn't the first time I've run up against this) people refusing to admit that Janeway -may- have erred...at that point, what's the point in even posting here, if we can't have a rational debate?
And that's all I'm looking for. "Yeah, you're right, she may have seriously screwed up the galaxy just to help out her crew." Is that somehow a huge concession? I would think/hope that Janeway herself would grant my point...and if not, then I don't think she's fit to wear a Starfleet uniform. Nobody that self-righteous is.
Hell, it would be no different from the other captains. Kirk's impassioned speech in Mirror, Mirror led to the enslavement of humans. Picard was willing to let people die to defend the Prime Directive. Sisko's actions in ITPM could lead to who-knows-what if the Romulans ever found out. Archer deliberately disabled a ship of innocent aliens just to help Earth. None of these people are without their flaws, and neither is Janeway, so to see (and I'll grant this isn't the first time I've run up against this) people refusing to admit that Janeway -may- have erred...at that point, what's the point in even posting here, if we can't have a rational debate?
Just to play Devil's advocate: Did Old Janeway kill Miral Paris?
The James Kirk in Star Trek XI grew up without a father, didn't go to Tarsus IV and turned out similar to Kirk Prime in some respects, but different in others. When the movie came out and some fans were begging them to "fix" the timeline (ignoring multiverse theory for a second), my reaction was that this version of Kirk (everyone else was changed too, but I'm focusing on Kirk for now) has the same right to live as TOS Kirk, and going back would essentially be murder of STXI Kirk and replacement with TOS Kirk.
Miral spent the first 20-ish years of her life on Voyager, with the same 150 people. The new Miral, born in Federation space, will probably live on Earth, and although she'll know both parents, she'll meet a much wider variety of people, have different experiences and will thus grow up a different person.
Kirk went from a "stack of books with legs" cadet to a reckless egomaniac (and I say that as a fan!) What will Miral become?
The James Kirk in Star Trek XI grew up without a father, didn't go to Tarsus IV and turned out similar to Kirk Prime in some respects, but different in others. When the movie came out and some fans were begging them to "fix" the timeline (ignoring multiverse theory for a second), my reaction was that this version of Kirk (everyone else was changed too, but I'm focusing on Kirk for now) has the same right to live as TOS Kirk, and going back would essentially be murder of STXI Kirk and replacement with TOS Kirk.
Miral spent the first 20-ish years of her life on Voyager, with the same 150 people. The new Miral, born in Federation space, will probably live on Earth, and although she'll know both parents, she'll meet a much wider variety of people, have different experiences and will thus grow up a different person.
Kirk went from a "stack of books with legs" cadet to a reckless egomaniac (and I say that as a fan!) What will Miral become?
No... its not a pointless endeavor. Its just that some of we misguided fans of Voyager have spent hours writing fan fic and others rewriting "less than perfect eps" that we've already examined the problem from so many ways that we are satisfied with our conclusion.
One of the most striking things I learned by responding to your post above, was that my previous StarTrek Diety... Captain Jean Luc Picard, had ADMITTED in season 5 that he's chosen to BREAK the prime directive on several occasions... and was willing to break a temporal prime directive that day if one did exist. Strange. One would have thought Captain Janeway was the only Starfleet officer to have broken such a vaunted rule.
If Captain Janeway ignored the Admiral's information and just rode on her merry way through the Delta Quadrant for 16 more years, she would have abrogated her precious right "to choose".
Something Picard refused to do! (Yes, before Voyager my name WOULD have been... "PicardRulz!")
I thought I answered this?
And one last comment.
As for collecting "souveniers"... Annorax wasn't memorializing the lost civilizations, he was collecting the tasty bits and consuming them along the way for his own benefit.
ANNORAX: This bottle(of Malkothian Spirits) is the only component left of the once powerful Malkoth race. Everything else about them, cities, culture, the very species itself never existed because of me. Every dish you see here comes from a civilization that has been erased from time. Mister Paris, you're devouring the last remnants of the Alsuran Empire. I have collected artifacts from hundreds of worlds. This vessel is more than a weapon, it's a museum of lost histories.
Sounds a lot like Fajo in TNG's "The Most Toys". Not at all complimentary.
Similar threads
