If you're Pike, will you accept your fate for the sake of those children and Spock?
- Thread starter Brainsucker
- Start date
No, I'd find my way to have my cake & eat it too.
Pike needs to give up his Captain's seat to Kirk after the 5-year mission.
Let Kirk take over the Connie.
Pike needs to save those kids somehow without becoming permanently crippled.
Given what he knows about the future, he can easily do that.
Pike needs to give up his Captain's seat to Kirk after the 5-year mission.
Let Kirk take over the Connie.
Pike needs to save those kids somehow without becoming permanently crippled.
Given what he knows about the future, he can easily do that.
Oh, I agree. If it's possible, then of course he should do it. But if he has to choose, he'll make the right call. And I will take comfort in the fact that Spock will do right by him, in time.
I think "A Quality of Mercy" made it very clear that any attempt to evade his fate will result in some sort of calamity that would kill millions, if not billions. It appears to be a "fixed point in time," to steal a Doctor Who term. I would like to imagine that I'm brave enough to sacrifice myself to save millions of people.
He actually KNOWS he can survive this with serious consequences. He lives he is healthy. What he needs to do is destroy the warbird. Since he knows their tactics — comet and all — its not all that hard really. Just tell Kirk.
i know, story, fixed point in time, calamity under any timeline but really that’s not how Trek time travel works.
i know, story, fixed point in time, calamity under any timeline but really that’s not how Trek time travel works.
Tell that to Edith Keeler.
Yeah -- if anything, the fact that Edith Keeler had to die and couldn't just have been taken to the 23rd Century with Kirk and Company strongly implies that time travel in the STU does have some "fixed points in time" if the Prime Timeline is to be maintained.
Trek time travel works in whatever way they decide it does for a given episode or movie. There are no rules. There have never been any rules.
perhaps the real issue was arresting the truck driver for vehicular homicide?
In City Kirk and co had no ability to change things - it was all up to the Guardian. But in “save the whales” they readily changed Gillian’s future. So I continue to argue this could be changed based on Trek time travel rules. Klingon priests notwithstanding.
And everyone she might have dealt with in the past. Even if she never married or had children, she didn't exist in a vacuum. What happens when she disappears?
She becomes the subject of an episode of Unsolved mysteries.
Dead - or disappears 10 seconds before being run over by a truck. Kind of SOUNDS like it’s not that big a leap. And certainly in either case she won’t stop the US from entering WW2.
I was referring to Gillian, not Edith. I would think that if Kirk knew the exact moment of Edith's death and simply grabbed her and brought her safety to the 23rd century moments before, it would affect the future far less than Gillian's departure. The latter might have lived several more decades.
Spock says it quite certainly that "Edith Keeler must die." Now, I'm no time travel expert but sounds important because without her we get no Federation...period. Dr. Strange couldn't have put it better.
I'm not sure why Edith disappearing by being taken to the future (if possible) would be substantially different from Edith dying?
Same but I'm going by the episode and how most ancillary material treated it after the fact. Also, the fact that one person would pretty much undo the existence of the Federation.
Similar threads
