i have an inside source.
Must've been one of those "what if" stories.Even though a Prime timeline episodes tells us there is in fact, a massive multi-verse.
How Many Star Trek Productions are in the Same Timeline?
- Thread starter MAGolding
- Start date
Something like story continuity changes like in '09 might.
Even though a Prime timeline episodes tells us there is in fact, a massive multi-verse.
Yeah, the point is that I don't care. It's a bunch of shows and movies, not a real universe. If the intent is everything is supposed to be in the same universe except the kelvin films, then that's the answer. Problem solved. Don't care.
I don't have an overpowering need to make it all fit or to watch / comment on parts I don't like or care about.
Huh. Good point... and when you put it that way, it's hard to avoid observing that with the exception of about a season's worth of DS9, the whole franchise basically just fell to crap after FC.
Nope. ENT is in its own timeline, separate from DS9 and V'ger. DS9 and V'ger in the same timeline as TOS and TNG, where ENT never existed. There is no overlap. It's not the same history, it's separate timelines.
Ha, funny how in another thread over in SF/F I was just saying how I've learnt over time (notably on the TrekBBS) how so people nowadays don't know the difference between fact and opinion...
If that's your own personal theory and how you see it and how you can only see it makes sense, fine. But it will always seem odd to me when people try to present things like that it as fact.
Also I don't understand what you mean. If you say the Enterprise-E's trip back to 2063 meant they changed events enough to cause ENT to happen, then surely once they returned to 2373 they'd be in the future where it did. That what I meant (playing along with your theory)
If that's your own personal theory and how you see it and how you can only see it makes sense, fine. But it will always seem odd to me when people try to present things like that it as fact.
Also I don't understand what you mean. If you say the Enterprise-E's trip back to 2063 meant they changed events enough to cause ENT to happen, then surely once they returned to 2373 they'd be in the future where it did. That what I meant (playing along with your theory)
They returned to their 2373.
Yeah, and everyone else's too 
Whatever. Never mind Discovery, or the 2009 movie, I just like how some people are still stamping their feet about a couple of continuity errors in Enterprise
(like no other previous Trek series had them.) I didn't realise it was still 2002.
Did you also know Star Trek III & IV exist in a different timeline to Star Trek II? Because Saavik looks like Kirstie Alley in one and Robin Curtis in another. What the hell is going on there?!?! My brain can't compute it!! It must be an alternate timeline!!
Or, you could just accept it's fiction and a TV show/movie and these things happen all the time everywhere. I know which option I go for.
Whatever. Never mind Discovery, or the 2009 movie, I just like how some people are still stamping their feet about a couple of continuity errors in Enterprise
(like no other previous Trek series had them.) I didn't realise it was still 2002.Did you also know Star Trek III & IV exist in a different timeline to Star Trek II? Because Saavik looks like Kirstie Alley in one and Robin Curtis in another. What the hell is going on there?!?! My brain can't compute it!! It must be an alternate timeline!!
Or, you could just accept it's fiction and a TV show/movie and these things happen all the time everywhere. I know which option I go for.
All the ones that say they are. Don't overthink it.
But what of In a Mirror, Darkly and These Are the Voyages? These Enterprise episodes are sequels/interquels to the TOS episode "The Tholian Web" and the TNG episode "The Pegasus". They provide that, even if Enterprise and Archer don't exist in the TOS/TNG universe, a version of the TOS/TNG universe *will* become the future of the ENT timeline.
For Enterprise to work, it must lead into TOS and the rest.
You err in applying logic. In the DISCOverse, ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly" happened but "Affliction" and "Divergeance" didn't.
Here is a discussion about the possible relationships and alternate universes of several more episodes.
"The Menagerie Part 1" was the 16th TOS episode produced, the 11th aired on 17 November 1966, and started on stardate 3012.4.
"The Menagerie Part 2" was the 17th TOS episode produced, the 12th aired on 24 November 1966, and started on stardate 3013.1.
"Space Seed" was the 25th TOS episode produced, the 22nd aired, on 16 February 1967, and had an opening stardate of 3141.9.
"This side of Paradise" was the 26th TOS episode produced, the 24th aired, on 2 March 1967, and had an opening stardate of 3417.3.
"The Empath" was the 64th TOS episode produced, the 67th aired on 6 December 1968, and started on stardate 5121.5.
"The Tholian Web" was the 65th episode produce and the 64th aired, on 15 November 1968, and started on stardate 5693.2.
"Whom Gods destroy" was the 72nd episode produced, and the 69th aired, on 3 January 1969, and started on stardate 5718.3.
"Turnabout Intruder" was the 80th TOS episode produced, the 79th aired, on 3 June 1969, and started on stardate 5928.5.
So in production order and stardate order they are: "The Menagerie Part 1", "The Menagerie Part 2", "Space Seed", "This side of Paradise", "The Empath", "The Tholian Web", "Whom Gods destroy", and "Turnabout Intruder"; while in airdate order they are: "The Menagerie Part 1", "The Menagerie Part 2", "Space Seed", "This side of Paradise", "The Tholian Web", "The Empath", "Whom Gods destroy", and "Turnabout Intruder".
Spock's actions in "The Menagerie Part 1" are considered mutiny:
But at the end of "The Menagerie Part 2" charges against Spock were dropped:
So either Commodore Mendez decided to drop all charges against Spock, or else Mendez still wanted to try Spock for mutiny but the Talosians prevented everyone from hearing or seeing his orders to do so. But Spock did commit the actions in "The Menagerie Part 1" that he and others considered to be acts of mutiny.
"Space Seed" was the episode where Khan Noonian Singh and his followers were found.
In "This side of Paradise" the crew became infected with happiness spores and deserted to Omicron Ceti III:
No doubt if there was any later legal investigation it was decided that everyone was not guilty by reason of temporary insanity due to the spores.
In "The Tholian Web" the crew of the starship Defiant seemed to have killed each other:
If there was a mutiny on the Defiant it was because the crew were driven insane by the effects of the interphase. Thus the verdict in any legal case would be not guilty of mutiny because of insanity caused by the spatial conditions.
Checkov was not a member of the bridge crew in the first season and was not seen in any episodes of the first season because the character had not be created yet.
In *Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan* Khan and Chekov recognized each other, even though Chekov was never seen in "Space Seed". The simplest explanation is that Chekov was part of the crew during part of the first season but never seen in any first season episode, and Chekov and Khan met off screen during "Space Seed".
Since "Space Seed" would have been before "This Side of Paradise" in all three of the usual episode orders - production order, airdate order, and stardate order - one can assume that if Chekov was aboard the Enterprise to meet khan - a famous historical character who had been believed to be dead for 200 years - off screen during "Space Seed" Chekov would have been aboard during "This Side of Paradise" and been infected with the spores and deserted.
So when chekov asked in "The Tholian Web" "Has there ever been a mutiny on a starship before?" Spock could have answered by saying "Yes, on the Enterprise at Omicron Ceti right before you came aboard.", or "Yes, and you were a part of it.", or "Yes, even though you do not consider your behavior at Omicron Ceti to have been part of a mutiny merely because it wasn't violent.". But Spock did not.
Instead Spock said: "Absolutely no record of such an occurrence, Ensign."
Thus like Chekov, Spock didn't believe that a nonviolent mass desertion by a starship crew constituted a mutiny. Spock obviously believed that a violent attempt by crew members to illegally and forcibly seize control of a starship was necessary to be a mutiny.
In "Whom Gods Destroy" the insane Captain Garth has taken over the asylum on Elba II.
"Whom Gods Destroy" happens after "The Tholian Web" in all three usual episode orders. But of course Garth might have been removed from command and sent to Elba II sometime before the events of "The Tholian Web". Clearly Garth ordered the genocide of a peaceful planet without any justification and his crew refused to obey that illegal order and removed Garth from command. So their actions were not a mutiny. Spock would not have called their actions a mutiny.
In "Turnabout Intruder" Janice Lester in Kirk's body accused the senior officers of plotting mutiny when they tried to restore the real Captain Kirk to command. Apparently there wasn't a psychotricorder aboard to read the memories of the "captain" and "Dr. Lester" to see who they really were. Thus "Turnabout Intruder" might be in an alternate universe to that of "Wolf in the Fold", one where psychotricorders were not used on starships. In any case, the "mutiny" in "Turnabout intruder" was not really a mutiny, and it was after "The Tholian Web" in all three episode orders, so Spock would not have known about that "mutiny" yet anyway.
So there were just two different mutiny incidents in TOS before "The Tholian Web", actions which Spock ignored when saying there were no starship mutinies on record in "The Tholian Web": Spock's own actions in "Menagerie" and the mass desertion by the entire crew, including probably Chekov himself, in "This Side of Paradise".
Spock may have believed that his actions in "Menagerie" were not on record due to the top secret nature of Talos IV, or believed that since Spock acted alone there was no element of conspiracy to take control of the ship, and a conspiracy between two or more crew members may have been necessary for a legal mutiny. In the case of the crew members who deserted to Omicron Ceti III, Spock (and Chekov?) may have considered their crime to be desertion, not mutiny.
Note that in "The Tholian Web" Chekov was looking at the bodies of Defiant crew members who had killed each other when he asked: "Has there ever been a mutiny on a starship before?". Chekov may have been thinking about bloody violent mutinies when he asked the question. Spock would have noticed that was Chekov's meaning, and didn't contradict or correct Chekov as he usually did when Chekov was in error.
So I would say that Spock's actions in "Menagerie" counted as acts of mutiny according to Starfleet laws and regulations. The actions of the crew in "This Side of Paradise" may have counted as about 430 individual acts of mutiny (or maybe about 430 individual acts of desertion) but not as "a mutiny". Perhaps the legal Starfleet definition of "a mutiny" was an attempt by two or more crew members to seize control of a starship by force involving actions of violence.
Spock's human step sister Michael Burnham may thus have been guilty of an act of mutiny in Star Trek: Discovery without there being "a mutiny" defined as an attempt by two or more crew members to seize control of a starship by force involving actions of violence.
Thus Spock's statement in "The Tholian Web" can be considered true even if "The Tholian Web" is a sequel to Star Trek: Discovery, "The Menagerie", and "This Side of Paradise".
And those who don't accept such legalistic technical definitions of mutiny as I suggest, may believe that it is not possible for "The Tholian Web" to be a sequel to Star Trek: Discovery, "The Menagerie", and "This Side of Paradise". In that case they will have to believe that "The Tholian Web" happens in an alternate universe to the alternate universes of Star Trek: Discovery, "The Menagerie", and "This Side of Paradise". Since the events in Star Trek: Discovery are too big and important to happen in the same alternate universe as some but not all TOS episodes, Star Trek: Discovery would then have to be in an alternate universe to all TOS episodes.
In "Turnabout Intruder" Captain Kirk in Janice Lester's body says:
This establishes that "Turnabout Intruder" is a sequel to "The Tholian Web" and "The Empath". So "The Tholian Web", "The Empath", and "Turnabout Intruder" happen in the same alternate universe, and one which may in an alternate universe to the universes of Star Trek: Discovery, "The Menagerie", and "This Side of Paradise".
"The Menagerie Part 1" was the 16th TOS episode produced, the 11th aired on 17 November 1966, and started on stardate 3012.4.
"The Menagerie Part 2" was the 17th TOS episode produced, the 12th aired on 24 November 1966, and started on stardate 3013.1.
"Space Seed" was the 25th TOS episode produced, the 22nd aired, on 16 February 1967, and had an opening stardate of 3141.9.
"This side of Paradise" was the 26th TOS episode produced, the 24th aired, on 2 March 1967, and had an opening stardate of 3417.3.
"The Empath" was the 64th TOS episode produced, the 67th aired on 6 December 1968, and started on stardate 5121.5.
"The Tholian Web" was the 65th episode produce and the 64th aired, on 15 November 1968, and started on stardate 5693.2.
"Whom Gods destroy" was the 72nd episode produced, and the 69th aired, on 3 January 1969, and started on stardate 5718.3.
"Turnabout Intruder" was the 80th TOS episode produced, the 79th aired, on 3 June 1969, and started on stardate 5928.5.
So in production order and stardate order they are: "The Menagerie Part 1", "The Menagerie Part 2", "Space Seed", "This side of Paradise", "The Empath", "The Tholian Web", "Whom Gods destroy", and "Turnabout Intruder"; while in airdate order they are: "The Menagerie Part 1", "The Menagerie Part 2", "Space Seed", "This side of Paradise", "The Tholian Web", "The Empath", "Whom Gods destroy", and "Turnabout Intruder".
Spock's actions in "The Menagerie Part 1" are considered mutiny:
But at the end of "The Menagerie Part 2" charges against Spock were dropped:
So either Commodore Mendez decided to drop all charges against Spock, or else Mendez still wanted to try Spock for mutiny but the Talosians prevented everyone from hearing or seeing his orders to do so. But Spock did commit the actions in "The Menagerie Part 1" that he and others considered to be acts of mutiny.
"Space Seed" was the episode where Khan Noonian Singh and his followers were found.
In "This side of Paradise" the crew became infected with happiness spores and deserted to Omicron Ceti III:
No doubt if there was any later legal investigation it was decided that everyone was not guilty by reason of temporary insanity due to the spores.
In "The Tholian Web" the crew of the starship Defiant seemed to have killed each other:
If there was a mutiny on the Defiant it was because the crew were driven insane by the effects of the interphase. Thus the verdict in any legal case would be not guilty of mutiny because of insanity caused by the spatial conditions.
Checkov was not a member of the bridge crew in the first season and was not seen in any episodes of the first season because the character had not be created yet.
In *Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan* Khan and Chekov recognized each other, even though Chekov was never seen in "Space Seed". The simplest explanation is that Chekov was part of the crew during part of the first season but never seen in any first season episode, and Chekov and Khan met off screen during "Space Seed".
Since "Space Seed" would have been before "This Side of Paradise" in all three of the usual episode orders - production order, airdate order, and stardate order - one can assume that if Chekov was aboard the Enterprise to meet khan - a famous historical character who had been believed to be dead for 200 years - off screen during "Space Seed" Chekov would have been aboard during "This Side of Paradise" and been infected with the spores and deserted.
So when chekov asked in "The Tholian Web" "Has there ever been a mutiny on a starship before?" Spock could have answered by saying "Yes, on the Enterprise at Omicron Ceti right before you came aboard.", or "Yes, and you were a part of it.", or "Yes, even though you do not consider your behavior at Omicron Ceti to have been part of a mutiny merely because it wasn't violent.". But Spock did not.
Instead Spock said: "Absolutely no record of such an occurrence, Ensign."
Thus like Chekov, Spock didn't believe that a nonviolent mass desertion by a starship crew constituted a mutiny. Spock obviously believed that a violent attempt by crew members to illegally and forcibly seize control of a starship was necessary to be a mutiny.
In "Whom Gods Destroy" the insane Captain Garth has taken over the asylum on Elba II.
"Whom Gods Destroy" happens after "The Tholian Web" in all three usual episode orders. But of course Garth might have been removed from command and sent to Elba II sometime before the events of "The Tholian Web". Clearly Garth ordered the genocide of a peaceful planet without any justification and his crew refused to obey that illegal order and removed Garth from command. So their actions were not a mutiny. Spock would not have called their actions a mutiny.
In "Turnabout Intruder" Janice Lester in Kirk's body accused the senior officers of plotting mutiny when they tried to restore the real Captain Kirk to command. Apparently there wasn't a psychotricorder aboard to read the memories of the "captain" and "Dr. Lester" to see who they really were. Thus "Turnabout Intruder" might be in an alternate universe to that of "Wolf in the Fold", one where psychotricorders were not used on starships. In any case, the "mutiny" in "Turnabout intruder" was not really a mutiny, and it was after "The Tholian Web" in all three episode orders, so Spock would not have known about that "mutiny" yet anyway.
So there were just two different mutiny incidents in TOS before "The Tholian Web", actions which Spock ignored when saying there were no starship mutinies on record in "The Tholian Web": Spock's own actions in "Menagerie" and the mass desertion by the entire crew, including probably Chekov himself, in "This Side of Paradise".
Spock may have believed that his actions in "Menagerie" were not on record due to the top secret nature of Talos IV, or believed that since Spock acted alone there was no element of conspiracy to take control of the ship, and a conspiracy between two or more crew members may have been necessary for a legal mutiny. In the case of the crew members who deserted to Omicron Ceti III, Spock (and Chekov?) may have considered their crime to be desertion, not mutiny.
Note that in "The Tholian Web" Chekov was looking at the bodies of Defiant crew members who had killed each other when he asked: "Has there ever been a mutiny on a starship before?". Chekov may have been thinking about bloody violent mutinies when he asked the question. Spock would have noticed that was Chekov's meaning, and didn't contradict or correct Chekov as he usually did when Chekov was in error.
So I would say that Spock's actions in "Menagerie" counted as acts of mutiny according to Starfleet laws and regulations. The actions of the crew in "This Side of Paradise" may have counted as about 430 individual acts of mutiny (or maybe about 430 individual acts of desertion) but not as "a mutiny". Perhaps the legal Starfleet definition of "a mutiny" was an attempt by two or more crew members to seize control of a starship by force involving actions of violence.
Spock's human step sister Michael Burnham may thus have been guilty of an act of mutiny in Star Trek: Discovery without there being "a mutiny" defined as an attempt by two or more crew members to seize control of a starship by force involving actions of violence.
Thus Spock's statement in "The Tholian Web" can be considered true even if "The Tholian Web" is a sequel to Star Trek: Discovery, "The Menagerie", and "This Side of Paradise".
And those who don't accept such legalistic technical definitions of mutiny as I suggest, may believe that it is not possible for "The Tholian Web" to be a sequel to Star Trek: Discovery, "The Menagerie", and "This Side of Paradise". In that case they will have to believe that "The Tholian Web" happens in an alternate universe to the alternate universes of Star Trek: Discovery, "The Menagerie", and "This Side of Paradise". Since the events in Star Trek: Discovery are too big and important to happen in the same alternate universe as some but not all TOS episodes, Star Trek: Discovery would then have to be in an alternate universe to all TOS episodes.
In "Turnabout Intruder" Captain Kirk in Janice Lester's body says:
This establishes that "Turnabout Intruder" is a sequel to "The Tholian Web" and "The Empath". So "The Tholian Web", "The Empath", and "Turnabout Intruder" happen in the same alternate universe, and one which may in an alternate universe to the universes of Star Trek: Discovery, "The Menagerie", and "This Side of Paradise".
Last edited:
They are all in the same timeline unless explicitly stated or implied otherwise.
TOS is set a hundred years before TNG, DS9 and VOY! ENT is an alternate timeline created by factions from an unknown future (possibly the Romulans) that interfered with accepted continuity! The Kelvin timeline is another reality possibly following on from the ENT mishap and maybe even more disturbed due to the Romulan incursion of Nero and his Borg technological vessel! DSC I have no idea about and believe it is either set before the Kelvin events or is yet another universe unknown so far in the Trek franchise, but it most definitely ain't the TOS universe!
JB
JB
DSC can't be a prequel to the Kelvin movies. In Into Darkness, Klingons are an unknown threat that have "fired on our ships half a dozen times", but a few years earlier in DISCO, they're in all-out war losing hundreds of ships.
Well if you believe that from comments made in the second film, then why do people believe that DSC is set in the TOS universe just because the suits tell you so? It's baffling to me!
JB
JB
And you (so it seems) don't understand that facts can be interpreted in different ways by different people?
These opinions all come from the same "facts."
This.
The Borg who boarded the NX-01 came from the TNG future, that doesn't mean they were from the ENT ultimate future.
The Defiant uniforms in IAMD were different than the uniforms in TTW. Specifically the chest insignia,
Riker and Troi in TATV are both considerably different in appearance than their appearance in TP.
TOS, TNG, and VOY are all in the Mad About You Timeline. The Star Trek movies are all in the Murder She Wrote Timeline, except for STID which is its own timeline. DS9 and ENT are Officially Licensed Toys from Mattel and DSC exists outside time and space and is not a part of any timeline, having reached a perfect state of nirvana.
Here are some more episodes that might possible be in alternate universes:
"Where No Man Has Gone Before":
"The Corbomite Maneuver":
"The Naked Time":
"This Side of Paradise":
Spock always speaks very precisely and accurately (except when scriptwriters goof up), and in the first season Spock always spoke of his parents in the past tense.
Spock's parents were not at his wedding on Vulcan in "Amok Time".
And so, for those fans who paid attention, the following dialog in "Journey to Babel" should have been a shock:
Thus someone might speculate that "The Corbomite Maneuver", "The Naked Time", and This Side of Paradise", and perhaps also "Amok Time", happen in an alternate universe where Spock's parents were killed in some unfortunate accident, and "Journey to Babel", TSFS, TVH, "Sarek" and "Unification" happen in an alternate universe where that accident never happened.
In TNG "Imaginary Friend":
Throughout the conversation the time when both of La Forge's parents were alive and serving in Starfleet is referred to in the past tense. Thus one might suppose that one or both of the conditions of La Forge's parents - being alive, and being in Starfleet - had changed by the time of "Imaginary Friend".
In the later episode "Interface" Picard gets a message:
Later LaForge talks to his father by subspace radio:
So in "Interface" both of La Forge's parents were alive up to 4 days before the first message, and both were still Starfleet officers.
So some might consider it possible that "Imaginary Friend" happens in an alternate universe where both of La Forge's parents were killed and/or left Starfleet, while "Interface" happens in an alternate universe where they were both still alive and in Starfleet up to the beginning of the episode.
of course it is possible there were other reasons for the use of past tense about the parents.
in "The Naked Time": Spock has lived away from his parents for almost two decades, and only visited them and had chances to tell his mother he loved her on rare visits every few years.
In "Journey to Babel":
If Sarek was already retired from being an ambassador, and Amanda retired from teaching - and there never was any statement about when, where, and what she taught (teaching Human studies courses while on Vulcan seems logical to me) - Spock's use of the past tense in "This Side of Paradise" would be correct.
And maybe La Forge's parents took a sabbatical from Starfleet for several months or years so they could be together instead of separated by their careers, at the time of "Imaginary Friend".
I think that imagining the newer, alive, status of Spock's and La Forge's parents was a retcon, that some creator god (i.e. a scriptwriter) randomly messed with the timeline and made it so Spock's and La Forge's parents had not already died is a really strange explanation of apparent inconsistencies.
I think that it makes much more sense to imagine that either Spock and/or La Forge had sufficient reasons to speak of their parents in the past tense while they were alive, or else that the episodes where they spoke of their parents in the past tense were in alternate universes to the episodes in which their parents were alive.
"Where No Man Has Gone Before":
"The Corbomite Maneuver":
"The Naked Time":
"This Side of Paradise":
Spock always speaks very precisely and accurately (except when scriptwriters goof up), and in the first season Spock always spoke of his parents in the past tense.
Spock's parents were not at his wedding on Vulcan in "Amok Time".
And so, for those fans who paid attention, the following dialog in "Journey to Babel" should have been a shock:
Thus someone might speculate that "The Corbomite Maneuver", "The Naked Time", and This Side of Paradise", and perhaps also "Amok Time", happen in an alternate universe where Spock's parents were killed in some unfortunate accident, and "Journey to Babel", TSFS, TVH, "Sarek" and "Unification" happen in an alternate universe where that accident never happened.
In TNG "Imaginary Friend":
Throughout the conversation the time when both of La Forge's parents were alive and serving in Starfleet is referred to in the past tense. Thus one might suppose that one or both of the conditions of La Forge's parents - being alive, and being in Starfleet - had changed by the time of "Imaginary Friend".
In the later episode "Interface" Picard gets a message:
Later LaForge talks to his father by subspace radio:
So in "Interface" both of La Forge's parents were alive up to 4 days before the first message, and both were still Starfleet officers.
So some might consider it possible that "Imaginary Friend" happens in an alternate universe where both of La Forge's parents were killed and/or left Starfleet, while "Interface" happens in an alternate universe where they were both still alive and in Starfleet up to the beginning of the episode.
of course it is possible there were other reasons for the use of past tense about the parents.
in "The Naked Time": Spock has lived away from his parents for almost two decades, and only visited them and had chances to tell his mother he loved her on rare visits every few years.
In "Journey to Babel":
If Sarek was already retired from being an ambassador, and Amanda retired from teaching - and there never was any statement about when, where, and what she taught (teaching Human studies courses while on Vulcan seems logical to me) - Spock's use of the past tense in "This Side of Paradise" would be correct.
And maybe La Forge's parents took a sabbatical from Starfleet for several months or years so they could be together instead of separated by their careers, at the time of "Imaginary Friend".
I think that imagining the newer, alive, status of Spock's and La Forge's parents was a retcon, that some creator god (i.e. a scriptwriter) randomly messed with the timeline and made it so Spock's and La Forge's parents had not already died is a really strange explanation of apparent inconsistencies.
I think that it makes much more sense to imagine that either Spock and/or La Forge had sufficient reasons to speak of their parents in the past tense while they were alive, or else that the episodes where they spoke of their parents in the past tense were in alternate universes to the episodes in which their parents were alive.
Similar threads
