Sign in to follow this  
JayTheTrekkie

Children of Time

Recommended Posts

1

I really dislike this episode because of really stupid and anti-star trek ending.

Sisko decision to leave the planet was very selfish. He basically killed all those people.

Eh? Sisko had resolved to duplicate the temporal anomaly and events that would send them back in time and ensure the colony survived. He even had the crew record messages to their loved ones to put in a probe that would break free and tell everyone back home what had happened.

It was the elder Odo who hacked the system and caused the ship to skip on clear and change the time line, and he only did that because he couldn't face seeing Kira die al over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else find it funny that Bashir was going on and on about his many descendents? Did he have a polygomy thing going or something? :P Actually, he mentions that he married this really beautiful officer and kept going on and on about. I think he was the only one that really liked that alternate future. :P

BTW, are Trill Symbionts immortal? It was already over a century old and last two more centuries? The Dax symbiont sure did last a long time...

I'd thought the Dax symbiont (by Jadzia's time) was 300 years old. By the time of CoT, it was probably over 500 or so. I don't think there's ever been a set limit as to how far a symbiont can live. Good question.

As for Bashir? Sounds like he took to the whole "Gilligan's Island" situation really well; guess he figured, "To hell with Ginger or Mary Ann; I'll have 'em BOTH!" ;)

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1

I really dislike this episode because of really stupid and anti-star trek ending.

Sisko decision to leave the planet was very selfish. He basically killed all those people.

Um... no.

Sisko left the planet thinking that history would repeat itself and that they would crash again. He wanted to SAVE the colony by letting events run their course.

It was the older version of ODO who found a way around the problem that caused their crash so that he could (selfishly) save Kira's life (he was in love with her). Older Odo locked the Defiant's autopilot so that they couldn't crash. When the ship didn't crash, Sisko was surprised. The Defiant crew left the planet expecting to crash again (as they had before), but didn't for older Odo's interference. And Odo later revealed to Kira that his older counterpart linked with him and told him what he'd done. You missed the entire point of the ending.

And what is "anti-Star Trek" anyway? :confused:

I don't get that.....

I disagree.

Yes Odo was also guilty. But Sisko decided to take a risk and threaten the lives of everyone in the colony. He thought only of himself. And plan did not worked.

That he decided to stay for the benefit of all, this would not have happened. People in the colony would be alive.

That is why this is so anti-star trek in my opinion.

Star trek is about helping people. courage to sacrifice itself to save others. And Sisko was not able to do that.

This is very similar as Janeway decision in Caretaker. She decided to sacrifice herself and the crew to save ocampas. Sisko decided opposite. Welfare of the colony was to him only in second place.

That is why I so dislike this episode. I do not like message of this episode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1

I really dislike this episode because of really stupid and anti-star trek ending.

Sisko decision to leave the planet was very selfish. He basically killed all those people.

Um... no.

Sisko left the planet thinking that history would repeat itself and that they would crash again. He wanted to SAVE the colony by letting events run their course.

It was the older version of ODO who found a way around the problem that caused their crash so that he could (selfishly) save Kira's life (he was in love with her). Older Odo locked the Defiant's autopilot so that they couldn't crash. When the ship didn't crash, Sisko was surprised. The Defiant crew left the planet expecting to crash again (as they had before), but didn't for older Odo's interference. And Odo later revealed to Kira that his older counterpart linked with him and told him what he'd done. You missed the entire point of the ending.

And what is "anti-Star Trek" anyway? :confused:

I don't get that.....

I disagree.

Yes Odo was also guilty. But Sisko decided to take a risk and threaten the lives of everyone in the colony. He thought only of himself. And plan did not worked.

That he decided to stay for the benefit of all, this would not have happened. People in the colony would be alive.

That is why this is so anti-star trek in my opinion.

Star trek is about helping people. courage to sacrifice itself to save others. And Sisko was not able to do that.

This is very similar as Janeway decision in Caretaker. She decided to sacrifice herself and the crew to save ocampas. Sisko decided opposite. Welfare of the colony was to him only in second place.

That is why I so dislike this episode. I do not like message of this episode.

Esmeralda; seriously... rewatch this one, because you're getting the whole story WRONG.

Several people have pointed out to you that Sisko left the planet in an attempt to PRESERVE the colony; if he'd stayed and never made the attempt, it would've changed it yet again. The alternate future ODO made the decision (by HIMSELF) to sabotage the Defiant and PREVENT her from crashing... he destroyed the colony to save the woman he loved; Kira Nerys.

I don't mind you not liking it, but I hope you at least understand that the reason you didn't like it is (apparently) ill-informed. Sisko didn't 'kill' anyone; he was trying to MAINTAIN that timeline.

And FYI, Star Trek is NOT always about just helping people; that's the Salvation Army. ST is often about choices; and sometimes, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many ("Search for Spock"). ;)

Janeway could've left behind a remote detonation device and destroyed the Caretaker array after she used it to save her crew (the same solution Kirk and Scotty used to destroy the planet killer in "Doomsday Machine"). But she failed. And saving the Ocampas is also interference with the Prime Directive (so is giving water to their mortal enemies.... the Kazon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strewth, it's oddly refreshing to see such an opinion against the tide on here.

Been ages since I've seen the episode one has nothing solid. As Paul Lassiter once said: "On behalf of us all...you go, girl."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems I scribed this episode almost three years ago.

A great episode to be sure, one of those moral episodes definitely. I liked seeing these descendants, particularly how O'Brien was. Or the Sons of Mogh which seemed like some Worf reenactment group. That moment with the boy asking if Worf could kill someone with a look.

"Only when I'm angry."

A moment that I liked but also reminded me of Insurrection was when the crew joined in with the harvest. What iffed me a bit was the Kira/Odo but there we go.

Yep. Pulitzer right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strewth, it's oddly refreshing to see such an opinion against the tide on here.

Been ages since I've seen the episode one has nothing solid. As Paul Lassiter once said: "On behalf of us all...you go, girl."

I don't mind an honest disagreement either; hell, I welcome it.

But her sticking point is over something that didn't happen; Sisko did NOT voluntarily/merrily just wipe out thousands of people. He was attempting to recreate the exact conditions that created the colony, not destroy it. Just for clarity... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strewth, it's oddly refreshing to see such an opinion against the tide on here.

Been ages since I've seen the episode one has nothing solid. As Paul Lassiter once said: "On behalf of us all...you go, girl."

I don't mind an honest disagreement either; hell, I welcome it.

But her sticking point is over something that didn't happen; Sisko did NOT voluntarily/merrily just wipe out thousands of people. He was attempting to recreate the exact conditions that created the colony, not destroy it. Just for clarity... ;)

Oh leave her be. If she wants to think that way, so be it. If it's something that didn't happen, so be it. It's a Star Trek forum, these things re bound to happen at some point. Wink.

Edited by Mackenzie Calhoun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strewth, it's oddly refreshing to see such an opinion against the tide on here.

Been ages since I've seen the episode one has nothing solid. As Paul Lassiter once said: "On behalf of us all...you go, girl."

I don't mind an honest disagreement either; hell, I welcome it.

But her sticking point is over something that didn't happen; Sisko did NOT voluntarily/merrily just wipe out thousands of people. He was attempting to recreate the exact conditions that created the colony, not destroy it. Just for clarity... ;)

Oh leave her be. If she wants to think that way, so be it. If it's something that didn't happen, so be it. It's a Star Trek forum, these things re bound to happen at some point. Wink.

Whatever. ;)

But she was answering my earlier post...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1

I really dislike this episode because of really stupid and anti-star trek ending.

Sisko decision to leave the planet was very selfish. He basically killed all those people.

Um... no.

Sisko left the planet thinking that history would repeat itself and that they would crash again. He wanted to SAVE the colony by letting events run their course.

It was the older version of ODO who found a way around the problem that caused their crash so that he could (selfishly) save Kira's life (he was in love with her). Older Odo locked the Defiant's autopilot so that they couldn't crash. When the ship didn't crash, Sisko was surprised. The Defiant crew left the planet expecting to crash again (as they had before), but didn't for older Odo's interference. And Odo later revealed to Kira that his older counterpart linked with him and told him what he'd done. You missed the entire point of the ending.

And what is "anti-Star Trek" anyway? :confused:

I don't get that.....

I disagree.

Yes Odo was also guilty. But Sisko decided to take a risk and threaten the lives of everyone in the colony. He thought only of himself. And plan did not worked.

That he decided to stay for the benefit of all, this would not have happened. People in the colony would be alive.

That is why this is so anti-star trek in my opinion.

Star trek is about helping people. courage to sacrifice itself to save others. And Sisko was not able to do that.

This is very similar as Janeway decision in Caretaker. She decided to sacrifice herself and the crew to save ocampas. Sisko decided opposite. Welfare of the colony was to him only in second place.

That is why I so dislike this episode. I do not like message of this episode.

Esmeralda; seriously... rewatch this one, because you're getting the whole story WRONG.

Several people have pointed out to you that Sisko left the planet in an attempt to PRESERVE the colony; if he'd stayed and never made the attempt, it would've changed it yet again. The alternate future ODO made the decision (by HIMSELF) to sabotage the Defiant and PREVENT her from crashing... he destroyed the colony to save the woman he loved; Kira Nerys.

I don't mind you not liking it, but I hope you at least understand that the reason you didn't like it is (apparently) ill-informed. Sisko didn't 'kill' anyone; he was trying to MAINTAIN that timeline.

And FYI, Star Trek is NOT always about just helping people; that's the Salvation Army. ST is often about choices; and sometimes, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many ("Search for Spock"). ;)

Janeway could've left behind a remote detonation device and destroyed the Caretaker array after she used it to save her crew (the same solution Kirk and Scotty used to destroy the planet killer in "Doomsday Machine"). But she failed. And saving the Ocampas is also interference with the Prime Directive (so is giving water to their mortal enemies.... the Kazon).

Wow....just....wow.

Anyone else find it funny that Bashir was going on and on about his many descendents? Did he have a polygomy thing going or something? :P Actually, he mentions that he married this really beautiful officer and kept going on and on about. I think he was the only one that really liked that alternate future. :P

BTW, are Trill Symbionts immortal? It was already over a century old and last two more centuries? The Dax symbiont sure did last a long time...

I'd thought the Dax symbiont (by Jadzia's time) was 300 years old. By the time of CoT, it was probably over 500 or so. I don't think there's ever been a set limit as to how far a symbiont can live. Good question.

As for Bashir? Sounds like he took to the whole "Gilligan's Island" situation really well; guess he figured, "To hell with Ginger or Mary Ann; I'll have 'em BOTH!" ;)

Haha yeah really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1

I really dislike this episode because of really stupid and anti-star trek ending.

Sisko decision to leave the planet was very selfish. He basically killed all those people.

Um... no.

Sisko left the planet thinking that history would repeat itself and that they would crash again. He wanted to SAVE the colony by letting events run their course.

It was the older version of ODO who found a way around the problem that caused their crash so that he could (selfishly) save Kira's life (he was in love with her). Older Odo locked the Defiant's autopilot so that they couldn't crash. When the ship didn't crash, Sisko was surprised. The Defiant crew left the planet expecting to crash again (as they had before), but didn't for older Odo's interference. And Odo later revealed to Kira that his older counterpart linked with him and told him what he'd done. You missed the entire point of the ending.

And what is "anti-Star Trek" anyway? :confused:

I don't get that.....

I disagree.

Yes Odo was also guilty. But Sisko decided to take a risk and threaten the lives of everyone in the colony. He thought only of himself. And plan did not worked.

That he decided to stay for the benefit of all, this would not have happened. People in the colony would be alive.

That is why this is so anti-star trek in my opinion.

Star trek is about helping people. courage to sacrifice itself to save others. And Sisko was not able to do that.

This is very similar as Janeway decision in Caretaker. She decided to sacrifice herself and the crew to save ocampas. Sisko decided opposite. Welfare of the colony was to him only in second place.

That is why I so dislike this episode. I do not like message of this episode.

Esmeralda; seriously... rewatch this one, because you're getting the whole story WRONG.

Several people have pointed out to you that Sisko left the planet in an attempt to PRESERVE the colony; if he'd stayed and never made the attempt, it would've changed it yet again. The alternate future ODO made the decision (by HIMSELF) to sabotage the Defiant and PREVENT her from crashing... he destroyed the colony to save the woman he loved; Kira Nerys.

I don't mind you not liking it, but I hope you at least understand that the reason you didn't like it is (apparently) ill-informed. Sisko didn't 'kill' anyone; he was trying to MAINTAIN that timeline.

And FYI, Star Trek is NOT always about just helping people; that's the Salvation Army. ST is often about choices; and sometimes, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many ("Search for Spock"). ;)

Janeway could've left behind a remote detonation device and destroyed the Caretaker array after she used it to save her crew (the same solution Kirk and Scotty used to destroy the planet killer in "Doomsday Machine"). But she failed. And saving the Ocampas is also interference with the Prime Directive (so is giving water to their mortal enemies.... the Kazon).

Nope. He just wanted to leave.

But Dax has developed a theory that might allow both. Them to move away, and to the colony to survive. But chances where not high. Chance that the plan will not succeed was much higher.

But Sisko decided to try. And he risked. He played with lives of everyone in the colony. And everything failed.

Only 100% certain is. If he decided to stay, colony would be live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Sisko decided to try. And he risked. He played with lives of everyone in the colony. And everything failed.

Maybe it would be a good idea for you to actually watch the episode before complaining about it, because clearly you have absolutely no idea what happened in it.

There was a theory that they could create two Defiants, one that crashed and one that survived, but they discovered fairly early on that this wouldn't work.

They then thought about going back to DS9 to save Kira, but one by one they all realised that they couldn't do it. They couldn't let the colonists die.

So Sisko decides to recreate the crash in order to save the colonists.

Only the "other" Odo sabotages the Defiant in order to save the woman he loves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Sisko decided to try. And he risked. He played with lives of everyone in the colony. And everything failed.

Maybe it would be a good idea for you to actually watch the episode before complaining about it, because clearly you have absolutely no idea what happened in it.

There was a theory that they could create two Defiants, one that crashed and one that survived, but they discovered fairly early on that this wouldn't work.

They then thought about going back to DS9 to save Kira, but one by one they all realised that they couldn't do it. They couldn't let the colonists die.

So Sisko decides to recreate the crash in order to save the colonists.

Only the "other" Odo sabotages the Defiant in order to save the woman he loves.

I already told her this; I think she's just being obtuse... I give up. She's clearly never seen this episode (at least not up till the very end, anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There really isn't consistency between the Trek series and movies when it comes to time travel. In this episode, we see effect before cause. The Defiant's crew encounters this alternate timeline before the accident which creates it and sends the Defiant back 200 years. So, what happens the 'first' time through the paradox? Did the Defiant which gets sent back 200 years encounter their descendants before crashing into the anomaly? Is there an endless loop of Descendant Dax giving the Defiant a faulty plan to create the paradox? It seems that the 'first' time through the loop, the Defiant crew hadn't encountered anyone and had to build their colony from scratch. So, no Descendant Dax around the 'first' time to give the Defiant that flight plan.

What I'm arguing is that I don't think the colony should have disappeared just because the Defiant wasn't thrown back again. A previous Defiant created an alternate timeline which provided for their existence. If it was part of a pre-destination paradox, then they either shouldn't have existed in the first place or there should have been no way of avoiding the anomaly. 

I agree with comments above that this was a good Odo episode and Rene Auberjonois nails it. I think that sometimes his 'unpracticed' humanoid face covers up some of the nuance of his facial expressions so this was a rare chance for him to not have to work around that.

It was a high moral episode, it also advances Odo's and Kira's character, but I didn't agree with how the time travel was handled.

6.5/10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This episode was done before Abrams introduced the idea in the Trekverse that alternate time lines = alternate universes. Before, they were separate concepts. Thus, all the episodes where they had to go back in time to "fix" the time line and restore it to what they remembered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This episode was done before Abrams introduced the idea in the Trekverse that alternate time lines = alternate universes. Before, they were separate concepts. Thus, all the episodes where they had to go back in time to "fix" the time line and restore it to what they remembered.

What is the mirror universe then? I've always assumed that was an alternate timeline. Agreed though that the movies changed the rules. Before the movies, we had both theories in effect; alt timelines = alt universes, one universe/timeline which needs to be fixed when there is a temporal incursion. My issue with this episode is that the temporal incursion hasn't happened yet, yet we see the results. They are talking about not existing if the Defiant doesn't hit the anomaly, the colonists would fade from existence. What's stopping the Defiant from coming back weeks, months or even years later and hitting the same anomaly and putting events in motion which leads to the colony's existence? The 'first' time it happens, there was no colonists around to tell the Defiant where to fly, so by having Descendant Dax around to give a flight plan, events have already been changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abrams may have introduced the concept, but given that this is GR's sandbox, the TV shows have to trump things and I consider it one timeline, which in Children of Time, was erased.

The mirror universe is not an alternate timeline.  It's a separate universe.

The TV shows established that there are many universes, and they used the Sliders theory that anything that can happen, does happen.

So there would be a universe where the Children of Time exist.  However, Trek also established that when time travel is involved, you can change things and erase things.

I consider universes and timelines to be completely separate things.  True, if you change history in one timeline, there is another universe where history was not changed, but those people are not the same people.

Take two identical universes, and the two versions of you are still not the same people.  They can meet.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JJ didn't introduce the concept of alternate timelines, TNG's S7 Parallels showed many alternate realities converging. In one of the timelines, the Borg is everywhere, the Enterprise is on its last legs, facial shaving has fallen by the wayside. 

For me, the mirror universe is a temporal offshoot of our own universe, not a separate universe existing somewhere outside ours in the honeycomb-like multiverse. I've been using alternate universe and alternate timeline interchangeably, but I think alternate timelines are still part of our universe, while an alternate universe may have different laws of physics and be completely alien to us. 

I think there was a point of divergence where the history of the mirror universe is changed from the prime universe. In ENT, the scene from First Contact goes differently with Cochrane seizing control of the Vulcan ship. Although the episode doesn't say it, I think this may be the diverging point which separated the two timelines.

As for the Children of Time, perhaps they didn't fade from existence, just from the Defiant crew's timeline.

Edited by Hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This episode was done before Abrams introduced the idea in the Trekverse that alternate time lines = alternate universes. Before, they were separate concepts. Thus, all the episodes where they had to go back in time to "fix" the time line and restore it to what they remembered.

Not quite; there was also TNG's "Parallels" (in addition to TOS' "Mirror Mirror"; the original alternate timeline....).  Sometimes ST uses the old 'cause-and-effect' model, other times it uses the more up-to-date parallel universes (or multiverse) idea; to paraphrase Spock, "The needs of the story... outweigh... the needs of the few." :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This episode was done before Abrams introduced the idea in the Trekverse that alternate time lines = alternate universes. Before, they were separate concepts. Thus, all the episodes where they had to go back in time to "fix" the time line and restore it to what they remembered.

What is the mirror universe then? I've always assumed that was an alternate timeline. Agreed though that the movies changed the rules. Before the movies, we had both theories in effect; alt timelines = alt universes, one universe/timeline which needs to be fixed when there is a temporal incursion. My issue with this episode is that the temporal incursion hasn't happened yet, yet we see the results. They are talking about not existing if the Defiant doesn't hit the anomaly, the colonists would fade from existence. What's stopping the Defiant from coming back weeks, months or even years later and hitting the same anomaly and putting events in motion which leads to the colony's existence? The 'first' time it happens, there was no colonists around to tell the Defiant where to fly, so by having Descendant Dax around to give a flight plan, events have already been changed. 

The Mirror Universe, originally, is a parallel reality in the multiverse. Not a concept akin to a "failed" timeline. However, I guess now it is simply is an alternate timeline. But it makes no sense because it is determined that alternate realities are a result of time travel altering events. Nothing was "altered". An event simply played out differently (Cochrane killing the Vulcans). To me, an alternate reality was a different possibility. There is a reality where Kirk didn't make peace with the Klingons via the Organians. There is a reality where Sisko's wife did not die at Wolf 359 and thus he never went to DS9. There is a reality where Voyager did not get lost in the Delta Quadrant. And there are realities where Archer ate corn flakes on January 14th, 2108 rather than eating corn pops. It is a variation of every single thing possible. Not a different time lines.

I want to answer the question about Children of Time but I feel I don't understand. From what I recall of the episode, what is stopping the Defiant from coming back is they wouldn't travel to that planet again and risk what could potentially occur. Especially since they saw what might occur. So they would never hit that anomaly and set things in motions. The events did change when Dax's male descendent tells them what happened. You are right that the "first" time it happens, no one was on the planet and they simply waited for the Defiant to come along and create their "situation".

 

 

Abrams may have introduced the concept, but given that this is GR's sandbox, the TV shows have to trump things and I consider it one timeline, which in Children of Time, was erased.

The mirror universe is not an alternate timeline.  It's a separate universe.

The TV shows established that there are many universes, and they used the Sliders theory that anything that can happen, does happen.

So there would be a universe where the Children of Time exist.  However, Trek also established that when time travel is involved, you can change things and erase things.

I consider universes and timelines to be completely separate things.  True, if you change history in one timeline, there is another universe where history was not changed, but those people are not the same people.

Take two identical universes, and the two versions of you are still not the same people.  They can meet.

Agreed. I mean, I don't mind that alternate timelines and alternate universe is the same thing. The only grievance I have is, as I mention below, is that it makes all those "We need to save the timeline!!!!" episodes seem so silly now. They didn't need to save those timelines anymore than they needed to "save" the Mirror Universe. They could simply let things be and jump to their own reality every time something occurred that changed their original perception of history.

JJ didn't introduce the concept of alternate timelines, TNG's S7 Parallels showed many alternate realities converging. In one of the timelines, the Borg is everywhere, the Enterprise is on its last legs, facial shaving has fallen by the wayside. 

For me, the mirror universe is a temporal offshoot of our own universe, not a separate universe existing somewhere outside ours in the honeycomb-like multiverse. I've been using alternate universe and alternate timeline interchangeably, but I think alternate timelines are still part of our universe, while an alternate universe may have different laws of physics and be completely alien to us. 

I think there was a point of divergence where the history of the mirror universe is changed from the prime universe. In ENT, the scene from First Contact goes differently with Cochrane seizing control of the Vulcan ship. Although the episode doesn't say it, I think this may be the diverging point which separated the two timelines.

As for the Children of Time, perhaps they didn't fade from existence, just from the Defiant crew's timeline.

Like I said to Sehlat Vie - Parallels did not imply those were alternate timelines but alternate realities. That's not the same thing. The mirror universe was not the same thing as the "failed" timeline when Gabriel Bell was prematurely killed before the Bell Riots. One was simply another reality in the multiverse and the other was considered an aberration that required Sisko "fix" it by becoming Gabriel Bell to "preserve" the timeline. If it was simply another reality, O'Brien and Kira simply needed to find Sisko, Bashir, and Dax and then whisk them away to their "reality" (rather than timeline) and leave the "failed" reality where Bell died too early behind. They didn't. Sisko was intent on preserving it to ensure that history played out (mostly) the same. Why bother doing that if they were separate realities? Because they weren't. It was a singular timeline originally.

I don't recall any time the mirror universe was considered an "alternate timeline" but more like what you don't see it as - part of the multiverse.

This episode was done before Abrams introduced the idea in the Trekverse that alternate time lines = alternate universes. Before, they were separate concepts. Thus, all the episodes where they had to go back in time to "fix" the time line and restore it to what they remembered.

Not quite; there was also TNG's "Parallels" (in addition to TOS' "Mirror Mirror"; the original alternate timeline....).  Sometimes ST uses the old 'cause-and-effect' model, other times it uses the more up-to-date parallel universes (or multiverse) idea; to paraphrase Spock, "The needs of the story... outweigh... the needs of the few." :P

Yeah but from what I recall (it has been quite some time since I've seen that episode), nothing was implied that all those parallel realities were alternate timelines. Just other realities like the mirror universe. The concept seemed separate. What I meant is Abrams introduced the idea that they are one and the same in Star Trek, not that he introduced the idea of a parallel reality. ;)

I don't mind the idea of parallel realities being alternate timelines. My grief with it is all the episodes and movie (First Contact) heavily imply that there is a singular timeline that could be "damaged" or "altered" and thus had to be "saved". Picard and co. didn't need to follow the Borg Queen's ship to stop her from preventing first contact. They simply could sit back, let her fly off into an alternate timeline, let her create her own parallel reality where she conquers Mankind, and they could just in their own reality. No issues. It just makes plot lines like that seem silly that they are so intent in trying to save history when their history is always preserved and untouched. Any "alternate" time line is simply another mirror universe they needn't worry about.

Don't even get me started on how head scratching it makes the Temporal Cold War. :P haha

You are correct, however, that time travel has never been consistent in Star Trek, though. Especially how sometimes it is deterministic (they were always meant to alter it) or it wasn't and they had the power to succeed/fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parallels is completely different.  It doesn't involve time travel.  Parallels dealt with essentially a multiverse.  It introduced the idea that we aren't dealing with just 2 universes, like the mirror universe and the prime universe, but an infinite number of universes.

That's totally fine and worked well within the established Star Trek framework.

But it's a separate animal from time travel, which has its own rules within Star Trek.

A timeline can be changed within that singular universe.

If I go back in time and change history, my universe changes.  But there will be an alternate universe where I never time traveled.  It won't be MY universe, but it will be a universe that would be identical to mine except for the fact that in that other universe, I didn't time travel and change things. 

I don't mind the idea of parallel realities being alternate timelines. My grief with it is all the episodes and movie (First Contact) heavily imply that there is a singular timeline that could be "damaged" or "altered" and thus had to be "saved". Picard and co. didn't need to follow the Borg Queen's ship to stop her from preventing first contact. They simply could sit back, let her fly off into an alternate timeline, let her create her own parallel reality where she conquers Mankind, and they could just in their own reality. No issues. It just makes plot lines like that seem silly that they are so intent in trying to save history when their history is always preserved and untouched. Any "alternate" time line is simply another mirror universe they needn't worry about.

 

Very true.  It completely wipes out the jeopardy in any time travel story, which was never the intent of the original writers as they wrote them.  But let's also not forget that Abrams really only talked about the alternate universe theory OFF camera, not on camera.  That keeps the original TV episodes and movies and their jeopardy in tact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But let's also not forget that Abrams really only talked about the alternate universe theory OFF camera, not on camera. 

Um... no, it's actually ON camera and even in dialogue.  Uhura has the very line, "an alternate reality" to describe their situation.  To which Spock says, "Precisely, our destinies, whatever they might have been, have been changed."   It's IN the movie... 

What is different (and what keeps the TOS time travel jeopardy intact) is the means by which one enters this 'altered timeline'; if one just goes up or down in linear time (their 'native' timeline, so to speak) they will alter it ("Tomorrow is Yesterday" "First Contact"), but if one 'jumps' timelines (via a blackhole device, wormhole eddy, or ion storm/transporter event, etc) then going into a different timeline (as was done in ST09) is possible.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, an alternate reality is not proof of anything.  If I travel in time, and change history, I have made an alternate reality.  That does not mean the original reality still exists. 

So that line does not prove anything other than the timeline in which the Abrams universe exists is different than the prime universe, which we already know.

What is different (and what keeps the TOS time travel jeopardy intact) is the means by which one enters this 'altered timeline'; if one just goes up or down in linear time (their 'native' timeline, so to speak) they will alter it ("Tomorrow is Yesterday" "First Contact"), but if one 'jumps' timelines (via a blackhole device, wormhole eddy, or ion storm/transporter event, etc) then going into a different timeline (as was done in ST09) is possible.... 

 

Believe it or not, based on what you're saying in the above category, I think we are essentially saying the same thing.

But instead of the word timeline, I use the word universe.

Using the easiest example, the mirror universe is a separate but equal universe to the prime universe.

It isn't a different timeline.  No one used time travel to "create" it.  It always existed, on its own.  But events just played out differently, so different things happened.

Let's go with something we were talking about a few weeks ago.

In the mirror universe, Edith Keeler lives.  In the prime universe, she dies.  To make it simpler, let's forget McCoy and time travel and assume that in the mirror universe, Edith bent over to tie her shoe and the truck passed by.

Nazis win.  Empire comes 300 years later.

Now let's assume that Kirk Prime crosses over into the mirror universe and the events of Mirror Mirror play out.  Bearded Spock somehow traces everything back to Edith Keeler, and his solution is to travel back in time and kill her.  So he pushes her in front of a truck several months before she meets FDR for the first time and she dies.

In that scenario, the mirror universe that we actually know would be altered.

Of course based on parallels, an exact version of the mirror universe would continue, but it wouldn't be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this