Ha ha. Yeah, I don't get the difference either.
The roles of Uhura, Sulu & Chekov (and maybe Scotty?)
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
I'm 99% certain the beehive will be in! She had enough variations of the hairdo as it was. There may be a question as to whether she will be featured as a yeoman or as a technician, more akin to her post-TOS appearances though. Byrne's NV stories are not in chronological order, so could be either. I've seen nothing official on her return yet so I may be hoping in vain!
It would be the most interesting if he follows up on Rand's departure from the ship, IMO. I liked the explanation that Byrne came up with, and that last scene between Rand & Kirk in the transporter room was great.
Yes, very clever usage of existing stills - a very bittersweet moment. But I felt robbed - I was stoked to see that Janice was appearing in issue 2 and then gutted to see it was to formally write her off the ship lol.
Well, as you said, one of the nice things about Byrne's New Visions series is that it skips around the TOS timeline, so Rand's never more than an issue away from potentially showing up!
I loved that one! One of my favorites so far. The explanation for "the bowling alley" is in my headcanon now.
Koenig had some good roles before STAR TREK, most notably as a gang leader in THE ALFRED HITCHCOCK HOUR's adaptation of Harlan Ellison's "Memo From Purgatory". He also interestingly enough played a Russian foreign exchange student on the high school drama MR. NOVAK and also guested in another episode of that series. This second appearance was a Writer's Guild winning episode, which Roddenberry thought so highly of he recruited its author, John D.F. Black to be TREK's story editor. I've also seen Koenig on GIDGET.
Was that where Koenig and Ellison first met? I know they're old friends.
A parallel timeline would be one which was the same as ours up until a point where an incident happened and it went off in another direction! A parallel universe would be one where things were similar but also definitely different in certain areas and always had been!
JB
JB
HENGIST: Fairy tales. Ghosts and goblins
Considering his body housed the evil entity should we believe him?
JB
JB
I don't see how you could tell the difference if you were suddenly transported to one.
Kirk and Scotty called it a parallel universe, and that's good enough for me. They ought to know. If the MU was actually an alternate timeline of some kind, I don't see how their escape plan at the end of "Mirror, Mirror" could have possibly worked. But it did, so therefore... Not an alternate timeline.
I see a parallel universe as one having many similarities to our own yet differing in other respects. And that certainly is what we saw in the Mirror Universe. There is no real reason to believe that their history followed the same course as ours and branched off at some point. TNG appeared to follow that idea in their episode where Worf was jumping from one parallel universe to another.
An alternative timeline shares a common history up to a point where there is a divergence caused by a temporal event. Essentially history is changed or altered at that point of divergence and branches off on a different path than the original timeline. Trek has also dealt with this idea numerous timeswhere the heroes endeavour to fix things and put them back they way they were. The question here is how can they really know if everything has returned to its previous state when they have only their point of reference? In both TNG and DS9 we saw examples where the heroes did not put things back exactly as they were before.
In DS9 Sisko replaces a famous man killed prematurely to try to keep history on the right track, but history has already been changed because Gabriel Bell still died before his time and Sisko's face is now in the history texts identified as Gabriel Bell.
In FC an associate of Zefram Cochrane's experiences contact with the Borg and the TNG crew openly reveal who they are to make certain Cochrane makes his flight. The TNG crew are doing the exact thing you're not supposed to do in giving people in the past advance knowledge of the future to come. Things look like they're back to normal when they return to the 24th century, but how can they really be sure given what they had done in the past?
Following this logic one can argue the events seen in ENT are the direct result of the TNG crew's interference in history and what is seen in ENT is not exactly the same history that originally happened.
The only instance where we see the heroes trying to put things exactly as before is in "Tomorrow Is yesterday." The TOS crew rewind events to put the people of the past back where they were before things were changed. In "The City On The Edge Of Forever" we only have the Guardian's word that everything has been returned to as it was originally. And in "Assignment: Earth" we're given the reasoning that the Enterprise was always part of those events in 1968. This is a "gimme" to get around the crew trying to erase what has happened.
But it can be argued that every incursion into the past results in an alternate timeline even if it's not immediately apparent after the fact.
An alternative timeline shares a common history up to a point where there is a divergence caused by a temporal event. Essentially history is changed or altered at that point of divergence and branches off on a different path than the original timeline. Trek has also dealt with this idea numerous timeswhere the heroes endeavour to fix things and put them back they way they were. The question here is how can they really know if everything has returned to its previous state when they have only their point of reference? In both TNG and DS9 we saw examples where the heroes did not put things back exactly as they were before.
In DS9 Sisko replaces a famous man killed prematurely to try to keep history on the right track, but history has already been changed because Gabriel Bell still died before his time and Sisko's face is now in the history texts identified as Gabriel Bell.
In FC an associate of Zefram Cochrane's experiences contact with the Borg and the TNG crew openly reveal who they are to make certain Cochrane makes his flight. The TNG crew are doing the exact thing you're not supposed to do in giving people in the past advance knowledge of the future to come. Things look like they're back to normal when they return to the 24th century, but how can they really be sure given what they had done in the past?
Following this logic one can argue the events seen in ENT are the direct result of the TNG crew's interference in history and what is seen in ENT is not exactly the same history that originally happened.
The only instance where we see the heroes trying to put things exactly as before is in "Tomorrow Is yesterday." The TOS crew rewind events to put the people of the past back where they were before things were changed. In "The City On The Edge Of Forever" we only have the Guardian's word that everything has been returned to as it was originally. And in "Assignment: Earth" we're given the reasoning that the Enterprise was always part of those events in 1968. This is a "gimme" to get around the crew trying to erase what has happened.
But it can be argued that every incursion into the past results in an alternate timeline even if it's not immediately apparent after the fact.
Well maybe not but if they spoke of an event you were sure of that happened differently in your time...
JB
Similar threads
