As much as we pay you, the least you could do is be on time.
And seriously, thanks for adopting this project. It is one of the member organized activities that are favorites in this forum and on the board as a whole. Well done.
TNG Rewatch: 5x18 - "Cause and Effect."
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
As much as we pay you, the least you could do is be on time.
And seriously, thanks for adopting this project. It is one of the member organized activities that are favorites in this forum and on the board as a whole. Well done.
Appreciate it, thank you.
I purchased the S7 BDs on Amazon today, had to wait til today to buy it so I could use the rewards on my CC. So, wooo!! I've got TNG on Blu-Ray!
I purchased the S7 BDs on Amazon today, had to wait til today to buy it so I could use the rewards on my CC. So, wooo!! I've got TNG on Blu-Ray!
Can't be bothered starting a new thread so bumping this
So what happened to the Bozeman crew after "cause and effect". They began new lives in the future or they tirelessly worked to find a way back to their own time? (Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway all managed to get back to their own times when it was required)
Did the time police turn up to take them back and fix the timeline (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.....depends on their mood apparently)
Any books cover this or explain what happened to them
Also, can it really be called a time loop if they keep remembering stuff from each loop. This remembering stuff is a bit convenient isn't it
One of my favourite things about TNG is the way that Worf's suggestions are almost always sandbagged by Riker or Picard within a matter of seconds of them being made. So it was pleasing to see that his (yet again quickly dismissed) suggestion in cause and effect actually turned out to be correct
Turn around!
So what happened to the Bozeman crew after "cause and effect". They began new lives in the future or they tirelessly worked to find a way back to their own time? (Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway all managed to get back to their own times when it was required)
Did the time police turn up to take them back and fix the timeline (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.....depends on their mood apparently)
Any books cover this or explain what happened to them
Also, can it really be called a time loop if they keep remembering stuff from each loop. This remembering stuff is a bit convenient isn't it
One of my favourite things about TNG is the way that Worf's suggestions are almost always sandbagged by Riker or Picard within a matter of seconds of them being made. So it was pleasing to see that his (yet again quickly dismissed) suggestion in cause and effect actually turned out to be correct
Turn around!
Last edited:
They only had a vague memory of the previous iterations. Maybe the whole paradox started by something causing them to turn around, and they kept doing it for the wrong reason in subsequent iterations.
At that point in the show, they did not know that the had echos of memories from previous iterations that they could use to get out of the situation.
I liked the way with Dr. Crusher's glass and this comment the episode makes us wonder if it's even possible for them get out of this.
Ship of the Line is decent and covers the Bozeman crew at the time when the Ent-E is being brought online
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_Line
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ship_of_the_Line
So they stayed in they future. The entire crew? Is that canon?
We've seen examples of the department of temporal investigations taking people from the past back to the future they originally came from but have we ever see them do it the other way around? Taking people from the future back to the past they came from
I guess you could argue they have less reason to do it since it doesn't change the time line (or does it?) it seems strange that they wouldn't want to fix that. They have families in the past then possibly again in the future
Those department of temporal investigations guys are very temperamental
^ I suppose it depends on what you consider "canon". Some people say canon is what's seen on screen so this would not be "canon". I personally think that "canon" is a nonsense, Trek is a work of fiction to be enjoyed (or derided) in all it's forms, incarnations and the interpretations of different directors - kind of like James Bond.
Temporal Investigations works with what they know as "history". If history records that the USS Bozeman and her crew were lost in 2278 and they were not seen again, than they showing up in the 24th century and staying is the proper course of events.
Times when this is not followed is times when "history" is thought to have been altered by the loss of someone in the past, or when "history" records that that person did stuff afterwards. Timefleet sent Janeway back, not only to her own time, but back to the Delta Quadrant because that was where she was suppose to be by their history. Though most time travel incidents we see don't have anyone from Temporal Investigations nor the Timefleet involved. The choice tends to be made by the captain of the starship involved.
Times when this is not followed is times when "history" is thought to have been altered by the loss of someone in the past, or when "history" records that that person did stuff afterwards. Timefleet sent Janeway back, not only to her own time, but back to the Delta Quadrant because that was where she was suppose to be by their history. Though most time travel incidents we see don't have anyone from Temporal Investigations nor the Timefleet involved. The choice tends to be made by the captain of the starship involved.
It sounds dubious that Captain Bateson would never have achieved anything if returned to his "own" time... Were all of these folks destined to die horribly in a few hours anyway? Did Typhon render them infertile at least, so none had any children afterwards?
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
The novel, at least if I remember it correctly, records them as having died in battle with the Klingons that saved Starbase 12. This is because the Klingon that was following them reported that he killed them to cover his dishonor of losing them at Typhon and spending way too much time looking for them instead of going on with his mission to attack Starbase 12.
You put them back and they may or may not become the heros history has made them out to be, and you may have the Klingon just destroy them and then attack Starbase 12 and win because the nearest starship is too far away...that starship being Enterprise (under Admiral Kirk at the end of his second Five Year Mission). The delay in looking for Captain Bateson saves the starbase as it gives time for Enterprise to arrive.
You put them back and they may or may not become the heros history has made them out to be, and you may have the Klingon just destroy them and then attack Starbase 12 and win because the nearest starship is too far away...that starship being Enterprise (under Admiral Kirk at the end of his second Five Year Mission). The delay in looking for Captain Bateson saves the starbase as it gives time for Enterprise to arrive.
It's tricky, but how is what happened to the Bozeman any different than what happened to Scotty in Relics? Scotty time travelled 80 years. He just did it at the normal speed, but he is nonetheless a man 80 years out of time. The same is true of the cryogenically preserved civilians in The Neutral Zone.
Do we send all these people back to their origin time, or do we accept that our timeline is such because they were extracted from it. So we should refuse to do so, because it tampers with our own time line, creating countless unforeseeable variables, one of which is that you have to consider that they are now affected by having seen the future.
Hell, I don't even recall there being any plans or mentioning of sending Mark Twain back, until he suggested it himself, & he's Mark Effing Twain! I figure that's why they have no issue holding Rassmussen either, once they know he's actually from the past
Indeed, it doesn't seem anybody in any Trek adventure would really feel concerned about his or her timeline being "hurt" by a little bit of time travel.
The E-C was sent back, but by people who thought their "natural" timeline sucked, and wanted something nicer if "unnatural" in its place. There was no desire to restore anything, but to tamper and alter instead.
Molly O'Brien was sent back, too, because her parents wanted her back the way she was. No motivation of "restoring the timeline" to be found there, either. And as said, Mark Twain went back because he wanted to. Are there any other examples of people being returned?
Our heroes engaged on a mission of timeline restoration basically twice, in ST:FC and "City on the Edge"; there was also some preemptive work in ENT. None of this included returning people or items to the past after they had been temporally displaced, though; apparently, the timeline was just dandy even with the Borg blasting a few past people to bits, McCoy causing the death of a bystander, etc. Our heroes appear to be in the belief that time is robust and only the most coarse alterations of the past actually carry on to the future.
Of course, the audience objectively knows this is true. But the heroes aren't merely blissfully ignorant of all the changes that time tampering might bring - they are fully aware that there are no such changes, hence their bliss. No doubt it's a subject covered at Starfleet Academy at the very least, but possibly also taught in UFP schools and imbued in children's entertainment all across the Federation...
Timo Saloniemi
The E-C was sent back, but by people who thought their "natural" timeline sucked, and wanted something nicer if "unnatural" in its place. There was no desire to restore anything, but to tamper and alter instead.
Molly O'Brien was sent back, too, because her parents wanted her back the way she was. No motivation of "restoring the timeline" to be found there, either. And as said, Mark Twain went back because he wanted to. Are there any other examples of people being returned?
Our heroes engaged on a mission of timeline restoration basically twice, in ST:FC and "City on the Edge"; there was also some preemptive work in ENT. None of this included returning people or items to the past after they had been temporally displaced, though; apparently, the timeline was just dandy even with the Borg blasting a few past people to bits, McCoy causing the death of a bystander, etc. Our heroes appear to be in the belief that time is robust and only the most coarse alterations of the past actually carry on to the future.
Of course, the audience objectively knows this is true. But the heroes aren't merely blissfully ignorant of all the changes that time tampering might bring - they are fully aware that there are no such changes, hence their bliss. No doubt it's a subject covered at Starfleet Academy at the very least, but possibly also taught in UFP schools and imbued in children's entertainment all across the Federation...
Timo Saloniemi
Please don't take this the wrong way...but is there any proof of that? I mean, are you sure that was Grammer and not Michael Dorn?
The admiral had hailed both the Bozeman and the Defiant, after all, so either Bateson or Worf could have responded...and I thought it sounded enough like Dorn that it could have been either one of them. And I would have thought it a bit odd that an actor as famous as Kelsey Grammer would do a cameo consisting of only one word.
As for why the DTI didn't intervene: Only very rarely do they actually DO any travelling in time, mostly they just report on time travel that has already taken place (and take steps to prevent more of it). If they could have returned the Bozeman crew, though, I doubt they would have. That crew had already seen too much of the future.
It didn't sound like Worf's at all, to the best of my recollection. But on the other hand, there's no confirmation that it was Grammer, either. As much as I'd love for his silky voice to have a cameo (I'm currently rewatching Frasier on Netflix, and he never really seems to turn down a role anyway), the burden of proof lies on the faction that says it really was indeed his voice.
So as it is, there really isn't any proof, though I'd love for Grammer or someone who worked on the film to confirm or deny once and for all.
I thought that actually had been confirmed elsewhere, but if not: okay, I got nuthin'.
Similar threads
