New Short Trek: The Trouble With Edward

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by eschaton, Oct 8, 2019.

?

How Would You Rate The Trouble With Edward?

Poll closed Nov 11, 2019.
  1. 1

    3 vote(s)
    2.4%
  2. 2

    4 vote(s)
    3.2%
  3. 3

    4 vote(s)
    3.2%
  4. 4

    4 vote(s)
    3.2%
  5. 5

    4 vote(s)
    3.2%
  6. 6

    6 vote(s)
    4.8%
  7. 7

    6 vote(s)
    4.8%
  8. 8

    24 vote(s)
    19.2%
  9. 9

    33 vote(s)
    26.4%
  10. 10

    37 vote(s)
    29.6%
  1. The Mighty Monkey of Mim

    The Mighty Monkey of Mim Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Location:
    The Land of the West
    The question was intentionally raised in the audience's mind (just as similar ones had been right from "Broken Bow" [ENT]), but they deliberately stopped short of drawing that implication:

    DANIELS: Silik is the one who prevented the reactor breach.
    ARCHER: Are you implying Silik was sent here to save my ship...and if he hadn't, we would have been destroyed today?
    DANIELS: [shaking his head in the negative] I'm not implying anything. All I'm saying is that I was assigned here to capture Silik when he came aboard...
    [...]
    SILIK: Did they tell you that ridiculous story about their noble efforts to protect history? The great Temporal Accord? They're lying to you, Jon. None of it is true. Whoever contacted you is working for another faction. They didn't come here to protect history. They came to alter it. Who do you think was responsible for the antimatter cascade that nearly destroyed your ship? It was them. I was sent to prevent it.
    ARCHER: And why would you want to do that? The first time we met, you tried to kill me.
    SILIK: I saved your ship because I was instructed to.
    ARCHER: By whom? What does Enterprise have to do with your temporal war?
    SILIK: I'm not privy to that kind of information...

    At best, it was left ambiguous and open to interpretation. (How fully truthful and forthcoming are either Daniels or Silik being with Archer? Which has the less limited slice of the big picture? What exactly is the 'true' difference between "protecting" history and "altering" it, and to whom, and in what context?)
     
    jespah and Ar-Pharazon like this.
  2. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    fireproof78
    It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of what would constitute the original timeline. When we are invoking time travel it would be very difficult to state "this is the original timeline" aside from what an outside observer might be able to see.
     
  3. Phoenix219

    Phoenix219 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Archer becomes necessary at some point after the first initial rewrite at First Contact, possibly due to an earlier change as part of the TC. The TC is happening and centered on the 22nd most likely because of all the lost butterflies after FC. Its become a weak focal point, ripe for hijacking the timeline.

    Basically, the fact that Archer is important NOW after many rewrites, does not mean that Archer was that important in the original pre-interference TOS timeline.
     
  4. WebLurker

    WebLurker Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2016
    But, the Archer timeline is needed for the Borg stuff to happen, and was a part of the "Pegasus" (TNG) events (a story that exists in the "original timeline"), not to mention touching the mirror universe and Data's creation. Headcanon can be whatever you want, but the facts all point to the conclusion that the so-called Archer timeline was always a part of the "pre-Archer timeline."
     
  5. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Going with the "flexible" timeline of Star Trek, my view is that it's a matter of degrees rather than kind.

    Hypothetical Timeline

    Point of Divergence (First Contact): Zephram Cochrane was always part of Star Trek's history (Timeline A) but he became a much nicer and less bitter man as a result of his encounter with Picard as well as more devoted to "selling" spaceflight to the world--which resulted in things being slightly more advanced as well as important than they were in the (Timeline B).

    Point of Divergence (Enterprise): Captain Jonathan Archer was probably always an important individual in Starfleet but it's just as likely he wasn't the Captain of the Enterprise but maybe the Captain of the Constitution with the new name a result of Zephram's encounter with Picard.

    The Temporal Cold War results in a lot more technology, a war with the Xindi, and other stuff happening that makes DISCOVERY happen.

    Point of Divergence (Discovery): The Klingon Empire has gone through some changes as a result of a much stronger Federation, Sulliban terrorism, and possibly a much nastier version of the Augment Virus (that happened anyway in the original timeline). So they go to war with the Federation when there was previously only skirmishes. Technology is far more advanced here but two of the biggest discoveries (irony) are classified.

    Michael Burnham is adopted by Sarek when she originally wasn't because Archer helps find the Kirshara when originally the Syrannites did it alone--and maybe her parents were killed because Archer stirred up the Klingons a bit more.

    What effect does this have on TOS and TNG?

    Not necessarily as much as it might because the Time Police (Daniels) and other people are there to keep things going reasonably similar. The details might be different but presumably they're there to make Kirk find Khan, the Organians to prevent a SECOND Klingon-Federation War, and so on.

    But details will be different like the fact the TOS Enterprise probably now looks closer to its Kelvin counterpart and so on.

    Timeline-C exists now that is going to be Picard where the Federation seems a lot nastier than "All Good Things" with its planned Data-slaves, Hobus possibly being a result of these changes, and a lot more pew-pew bang-bang. Picard is still Picard and the galaxy is still the galaxy but there's a rougher more actioney overtown as well as the technology being more advanced.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
    DaveyNY and Phoenix219 like this.
  6. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Then why was there a planet named after him in the original pre-interference timeline?
     
    WebLurker likes this.
  7. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    That's a bit like saying that Thomas Street has commemorative routes in every city, town and village in the English-speaking world. (He did have a crater named after him, though.)

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  8. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    Named for him, or named for his father who created the warp five engine?
     
    Phoenix219 likes this.
  9. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    It's not the planet but the star that is named Archer, FWIW. Or then the third planet around the star Alpha Lpha is named Archer Four, after the famous band.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  10. Amasov

    Amasov Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2001
    It wasn't named with any foresight in mind. It's highly possible when Enterprise was being created that the character was named Jonathan Archer to make it LOOK like something referenced on a previous (or later) show was named for him. Or it ended up just being a coincidence as the name Archer could have easily just come up again somehow. I tend to think it was just sheer coincidence that just so happened to fit in nicely.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
  11. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    fireproof78
    Very much a coincidence. Otherwise, the argument could be made that Archer in VOY was related somehow. :shrug:
     
  12. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Well, according to Enterprise's retcon it is indeed named after Jonathan Archer. Even if we're entertaining the idea of an Archer-less timeline, would not the planet be named after whoever the captain of the ship was that first visited the planet rather than the engineer who created the engine that made visiting the planet possible?
     
  13. Noname Given

    Noname Given Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    None Given
    You're missing an "and" ;)
     
    Ar-Pharazon likes this.
  14. Amasov

    Amasov Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2001
    Very true! Let's not kid ourselves; the planet was really named after her!

    Technically Porthos was the first Earth being to set foot on the planet. They should've really called Porthos IV.

    [​IMG]
     
    DEWLine, King Daniel Beyond and BillJ like this.
  15. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    We need more dogs in Star Trek.

    A Welsh Corgi should be the next one to rule the galaxy.
     
  16. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    A lot of times, there is no rhyme or reason why something gets a name. In another timeline, perhaps it wasn’t the first planet that the NX-01 visited?
     
  17. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Mind you, I don't have a problem with Archer having been *A* Starfleet Captain and even an important one. I just wouldn't make him a messianic Enterprise captain.

    Why couldn't he have captained the Constitution the Constitution-class is named for?
     
    BillJ likes this.
  18. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    Hundred years too early. ;)
     
    Mr. Laser Beam likes this.
  19. Charles Phipps

    Charles Phipps Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Not quite what I meant.

    Mind you, using real Naval Traditions, the Galaxy class would require there be a USS Galaxy.
     
  20. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    Ah. My mistake.