Topic: Enterprise actually takes place in the future!!! wait....
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
You know this whole temporal cold war thing is gonna confuse me. Sense we are dealing with guys from the future going back in time, possibly sometime after TNG, does that mean that Enterprise takes place in the future sense these events could be taking place after TNG thanks to the time travelers? Which got me thinking about another thing, it WON'T matter if TPTB violate continuity. The only reason Humans made first contact with the Klingons when they did is because of "The Shadowy Future Guy." Maybe the Humans originally did make first contact with the Klingons at whatever time that was originally stated back in TNG. The only reason it happened earlier is because someone in the future is messing with the time line.
This can explain plenty many "continuity violations." The fact that Klingons got holo-tech long before the Federation did could have been the result of the Enterprise launching when it did! If the Enterprise launched when it was supposed to, the wierd holo-tech guys probably would have never encountered the Enterprise, and in turn, they might not have ever messed with the Klingons, which in turn, resulted in the Klingons getting the Holo-tech. After all. Why was the Enterprise launched early? It was all the result of that Shadowy Future Guy messing with the time line!!
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Thats one thing that bothered me.. If TPTB really didnt want to deal with continuity issues created by TOS (as Braga has said, if continuity gets in the way of a story he wants to tell, hell disregard the continuity) Well, could TPTB use the time-travel events in Enterprise to say that TOS 'never happened'? Thatwould clear the way for them to remake the Trek universe in their own image. Frightening.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Even with my being doped up on cold medication, I still can't wrap my brain around that. First of all, TNG established Klingon First Contact to be "centuries" prior to the episode "First Contact." That same episode established that Kligon First Contact was a disastrous event. One of our farmers almost killed the Klingon, and the Klingons don't exactly seem to be too pleased with humanity. There is no continuity error here.
And who's to say that Klingon First Contact really did happen the way as presented in Enterprise? Why couldn't there have been some other event that triggered Klaang being chased by some unknown enemy and crashing on Earth? First Contact between humans and the Klingons has never been thoroughly examined until now. One cannot say that this way is wrong because we don't have another firm example to compare it with. The same goes for your other instances of "continuity violations." There is nothing firm to say when it did happen by the pre-Enterprise Trek timeline and declare the Enterprise events to be violations.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
Of course, it's also entirely possible that events ARE and WILL unfold as they will/did in the past/present Star Trek timeline. Shadowy Future-guy was always destined to mess with the timeline, thus creating a temporal loop.
He's just fufilling destiny.
-------------------- Sheridan: "Well, as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and totally consistant with what I've come to expect from a Vorlon..." Kosh: "Good." Sheridan: "I REALLY hate it when you do that..." Kosh: "Good."
posted
Me too. "Oh, nothing explicitly says this, so continuity isn't violated." "Oh, yes, the Original Series did say it happened differently, but how can you take anyone seriously in those clothes, and the effects sucked, so continuity isn't violated." "OK, that goes against what TNG established, but they didn't have any arc episodes, and they had The Boy, and how are we supposed to respect storytelling like that? It doesn't violate continuity."
On and on and on. . .
To go back to MIB's point, I see where he's coming from. I believe even Berman mentioned something along the lines of how further down the line they'll explain why we've never heard of all these events and people before. I can well believe that we could be seeing a history unfolding that is drastically different from what has previously been surmised (note italics).
There have to be consequences. We can't assume under these circumstances that every week Archer & Co, are going to foil the nefarious Future Guy and retain a pristine timeline. You do that, you've got Time Trax.
I can well see them sacrificing themselves in the end to restore history as we "know" it. They can't just sit back and say "hooray, we won, the Trek future is safe" because all the fans will just say "yes, but we've been watching it for 35 years, we know it's safe; by the way, hope you weren't expecting gratitude because no-one even remembers you 200 years down the line."
Dennis Bailey, who contributed the 'disasterous contact' line with the Klingons to the script ('First Contact' -- the ep, not the film), freely admits he had no preconceptions about what might've been involved in said first contact. He seemed to think "Broken Bow" did a not-bad job at depicting afore-mentioned 'disasterous first contact.'
[ November 06, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Be fair, that's hardly the worst spelling mistake people have made around here, whether they are from Brittain or Ammerica.
(Actually, the only one that's annoying me at the moment is "rediculous". It looks selly.)
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
