Yeah great. "Who says Daniels said the truth?" My ass. Who says that he lied? You say it. And that's only your opinion, you can't back that up in fact just as well as I can't back it up in fact that Daniels said the truth.
Xindi attack and its effect on Trek history
- Thread starter Mach5
- Start date
Keep in mind that virtually everything said in here is simply someone's opinion. The "my ass" comment is unnecessary.
It makes sense that what he said about time-travel is true. The fact that the Vulcans of the 22nd century were convinced it was impossible shows that their understanding was flawed. We saw the beginning of understanding in the 23rd century and still more in the 24th but even then we were told that we had a long way to go:
Picard: "Are you from another time?"
The Traveler: "Not another time exactly...well actually AS YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT, I suppose that's as good an explanation as any."
The Traveler: "Your perception of time and space is very narrow."
In VOY Relativity, Braxton's second in command tells Janeway to avoid time travel. The obvious implication is that they do not have a good enough understanding of it to do it responsibly.
Picard: "Are you from another time?"
The Traveler: "Not another time exactly...well actually AS YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT, I suppose that's as good an explanation as any."
The Traveler: "Your perception of time and space is very narrow."
In VOY Relativity, Braxton's second in command tells Janeway to avoid time travel. The obvious implication is that they do not have a good enough understanding of it to do it responsibly.
Sure. But, there again, Silik did more than a few things that were helpful for Our Heroes, too. Either way, not evidence that either of them were working for the good guys.
This thread is just a prime example of how much of a badly thought mess the Temporal Cold War really was.
At least Trek, over the years, has made at least some attempts at developing a consistent timeline. Unlike some other shows I could mention, which take what I consider to be a maddeningly idiotic pride in NOT having any continuity.
...Also, wouldn't the whole point of a temporal cold war be to have a "mess"?
The absence of a certain pre-UFP vessel from a collection of Enterprises can hardly be significant, because no collection of pre-UFP Enterprises can ever be complete. It would have to include several dozen seagoing and no doubt as many airborne and spaceborne constructs, after all. What gets included is always pick-and-choose: in our universe, the WWII carrier was famous and heroic and stuff, while the Cold War one never did anything worthwhile, but while the TMP display highlights the first, the E-D and NX-01 displays highlight the second.
As for lack of other mention to ENT, let's remember that our heroes think that humans of the past were barbarians (Kirk's hero Khan perhaps excluded). It wouldn't make sense for them to praise past achievements much, then. Sure, Archer would be closer to the modern civilized man than, say, Patton or Attila, but not necessarily by that much. People today aren't all that proud about how old slave owner and philanderer Washington lived, either: they only generally mention certain political achievements of his. Perhaps Archer is only remembered as an early UFP President, too?
Timo Saloniemi
The absence of a certain pre-UFP vessel from a collection of Enterprises can hardly be significant, because no collection of pre-UFP Enterprises can ever be complete. It would have to include several dozen seagoing and no doubt as many airborne and spaceborne constructs, after all. What gets included is always pick-and-choose: in our universe, the WWII carrier was famous and heroic and stuff, while the Cold War one never did anything worthwhile, but while the TMP display highlights the first, the E-D and NX-01 displays highlight the second.
As for lack of other mention to ENT, let's remember that our heroes think that humans of the past were barbarians (Kirk's hero Khan perhaps excluded). It wouldn't make sense for them to praise past achievements much, then. Sure, Archer would be closer to the modern civilized man than, say, Patton or Attila, but not necessarily by that much. People today aren't all that proud about how old slave owner and philanderer Washington lived, either: they only generally mention certain political achievements of his. Perhaps Archer is only remembered as an early UFP President, too?
Timo Saloniemi
Actually, its safe to say that Archer never became president, since in ST XI he's still in Starfleet. That computer screen in IaMD pt2. is not considered canon.
It's clear that the beagle mentioned in STXI can't be the one from ENT, but rather a later dog of the same description. Porthos must be dead by then. Similarly, Admiral Archer could be Jonathan's niece for all we know, and Jonathan could well be dead, just as "IaMD" says...
OTOH, if Jonathan Archer for some reason lived for more than a century, there's no good reason why he couldn't have become both President and Admiral. Scotty would obviously think of him by the latter title.
Timo Saloniemi
OTOH, if Jonathan Archer for some reason lived for more than a century, there's no good reason why he couldn't have become both President and Admiral. Scotty would obviously think of him by the latter title.
Timo Saloniemi
Oh come on Timo, Orci and Kurzman confirmed that is was THE Jonathan Archer ages ago.
"...Admiral Archer is a reference to the Archer we all know and love, and yes he would be over 100, which is a likely life expectancy in a futuristic space faring race of humans (as depicted by McCoy’s (Deforest Kelley) in THE NEXT GENERATION."
-- Roberto Orci, Trekmovie.com, 05/18/2009
Last edited:
There's no reason we'd have to believe them, though. Similarly, TPTB wanted Saavik to be pregnant with Spock's child, and then didn't want it; wanted Joachim to be Khan's son, and then didn't want it; wanted Spock's father to be dead, and then wanted to use him in an episode; did the same with Sisko's dad. There was no inconsistency involved in any of the cases, because the initial idea was shot down by later evidence without ever having been conclusively enacted in the Trek universe.
Similarly, the idea that Jonathan Archer is dead as of 2245 is perfectly in keeping with STXI, as long as we ignore stuff that never was part of the Trek universe.
(Although of course Jonathan Archer could have been killed by the shock of his beloved beagle being lost in a transporter accident, in 2245 - leading to Scotty being sent to chill out on Delta Vega thirteen years later...)
Timo Saloniemi
Similarly, the idea that Jonathan Archer is dead as of 2245 is perfectly in keeping with STXI, as long as we ignore stuff that never was part of the Trek universe.
(Although of course Jonathan Archer could have been killed by the shock of his beloved beagle being lost in a transporter accident, in 2245 - leading to Scotty being sent to chill out on Delta Vega thirteen years later...)
Timo Saloniemi
Agreed on the first, but not on the second...
I don't understand the concept of trying to derive consistent theories of temporal mechanics as conceived by story writers with no background in physics. If you want to argue about alternate time and parallel universes it might be better to do so in the context of books by Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene.
If anything should be questioned it should be the TOS episode that had the Enterprise going back in time to observe history. From that point forward every series has made a mess out of time.
If anything should be questioned it should be the TOS episode that had the Enterprise going back in time to observe history. From that point forward every series has made a mess out of time.
So anything written by Naren Shankar is up for grabs?
Trek has never been consistent with its time travel rules. Anything from flying round a sun really fast, to a Bajoran Orb, can get you back in time. Where are Braxton and his timecops in 'City on the Edge of Forever'? (I know, its a TV show, and they weren't invented yet)
Where was Braxton in "Edgame" when old Janeway erased 20 years of history? Oh yes, its a TV show, and they... Wait...
Braxton and his timecops can only intervene when someone else from the 29th century is messing with the timeline. The question you should be asking is where was Daniels, since he could intervene whenever anyone from any time was messing with the timeline.
Similar threads
