|
I wonder what the disposition of the Klingon empire is in Picard. At this point they're the only major local non-Federation polity left that hasn't' been recently decimated and they were on the cusp of major changes and reforms at the end of DS9.Gaz-L posted:I think it's also fair to call out the journo about Dunkirk simply because she notes Picard wrote history books after he retired, so presumably at least one of them was about WW2. I hope a bunch of those books were about Kataan (The Inner Light), it'd be a really good reference if they mention he spent ages writing and educating about that.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:If the chart doesn't quite explain it the simplest way to think of it is that correcting X event in the past to prevent Y thing from happening because it already happened in your timeline. So you couldn't just go in the past and kill baby Thanos. You need to grab the gems from the past, bring them forward and restore the lives lost in Infinity War in the immediate present otherwise you just create a splinter timeline. They explicitly say if the changes are "small enough" it won't create a new timeline. Of course if you think about that at all that's nonsense magic. Fortunately nonsense magic is totally a thing in the Marvel universe so it's no problem in that movie at all. The only thing the movie brought up that might be relevant for other settings is that when you go back in time to fix something, from the perspective of those you left behind you're just disappearing forever and everything is just as horrible. When you go back into the future, that's a new future that exists in parallel to the old one, that still exists and now is just horrible without you. Traditional time travel is obviously morally abhorrent if you don't just forget about the entire universes of suffering you leave behind. To make it relevant to the Picard thread: If Picard thinks Spock just disappeared during the destruction of Romulus, then the people of Earth who sent Kirk back to pick up whales from the past just saw him disappear and continued to be hosed up by the confused whale loving probe. Kirk abandoned billions to die, while he personally had fun 80s adventures and eventually created a new timeline. The only way around this moral fuckery is to presume a stable time loop. Kirk always existed in his own past- before the whale probe showed up there were confusing records of a guy who looked a lot like Kirk running around in the 80s, and news archives of the whales going missing after they were released or whatever. This ends up kind of loving with peoples perception of "free will" (by actually going back in time Kirk was just fufilling his fate- there was no way he couldn't do it 'cause he had already done it), but free will is a bullshit concept anyway so I'm personally fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
davidspackage posted:I kinda hope that the (Picard) theory that his Romulan carers are in on the whole thing and that's why he just wakes up on his own sofa instead of a hospital in San Fran, doesn't pan out. I don't like the idea that the few friendly Romulans we see still turn out to be sneakdicks. Well, there certainly didn’t appear to be a reason for him to be in a hospital. They were probably like, “Oh this is Jean-Luc Picard, comm his house in La Barre and see if he has people that can watch him. Yes? Ok send him to transporter room 2.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Yeah, they made the interesting point that any time travel shenanigans leaves a doomed alternate timeline, and that's kind of monstrous. So they had to undo their changes at the end, mainly by putting back objects that they took. And then (this is the reason this will only work in a comic book movie) fate or some poo poo will take care of the rest if it's close enough. But who made the glasses that Bones gave Kirk? Lordshmee posted:Well, there certainly didn’t appear to be a reason for him to be in a hospital. They were probably like, “Oh this is Jean-Luc Picard, comm his house in La Barre and see if he has people that can watch him. Yes? Ok send him to transporter room 2.” Yeah don't see why keeping someone in hospital for observation would be necessary when they can probably monitor his vitals from the next star system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
Are there any time travel fictions that work on the premise of time not being linear? We always have to think that if we go back in the past and change this or that, it must have consequences for the future but in our world the nature of time is still kind of mysterious and in a fictional world you're obviously free to construct time to work however you want. Go back in time, kill your dad, go back to present and you still exist both with a dad and a dead dad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
marktheando posted:But who made the glasses that Bones gave Kirk? Here's the real question: if Star Trek IV is a closed loop and they're jumping into the same timeline, depending on how many loops have happened, those glasses keep aging. The Lenses stay 300 years old since they get replaced in 1986, but the frames would age 300 years per cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Are there any time travel fictions that work on the premise of time not being linear? We always have to think that if we go back in the past and change this or that, it must have consequences for the future but in our world the nature of time is still kind of mysterious and in a fictional world you're obviously free to construct time to work however you want. Go back in time, kill your dad, go back to present and you still exist both with a dad and a dead dad. Futurama time is circular but there's still consequences to past alteration
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:09
|
|
|
Did I miss something or did they just not bring up Data having a daughter already at all?Khanstant posted:Are there any time travel fictions that work on the premise of time not being linear? We always have to think that if we go back in the past and change this or that, it must have consequences for the future but in our world the nature of time is still kind of mysterious and in a fictional world you're obviously free to construct time to work however you want. Go back in time, kill your dad, go back to present and you still exist both with a dad and a dead dad. In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it's predetermination. The past already happened, including what you did when you traveled back into it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
marktheando posted:But who made the glasses that Bones gave Kirk? It's almost logically consistent nonsense until you consider wear and tear on the infinitely old glasses. Even if you suppose bits of the frame broke and were replaced, ship of Theseus style, so all the components are fresh each time loop, you still have the question of who designed the glasses. And considering the complexity of the glasses with no apparent antecedents in its own past, the most plausible explanation is that it was God. (Okay, fine time loops aren't all that coherent themselves, but they have the surface appearance of logic, and they're funny, so they're okay with me. The only truly logical time travel is the boring/problematic kind where you keep creating new timelines whenever you go back.) Khanstant posted:Are there any time travel fictions that work on the premise of time not being linear? We always have to think that if we go back in the past and change this or that, it must have consequences for the future but in our world the nature of time is still kind of mysterious and in a fictional world you're obviously free to construct time to work however you want. Go back in time, kill your dad, go back to present and you still exist both with a dad and a dead dad. *Except ones where images fade into photographs or people fade out of existence. Forget the obvious question of why an object would fade away at one particular time and not another, what would happen if you took a picture of something fading away? What if it was an object and you tried to touch it? If someone sees it fading away, how could that series of events exist in the memory of the character seeing it happen? Wouldn't the memory that things had ever been different fade away too? In short, it's pretty easy to do a nonsensical time travel story and get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Are there any time travel fictions that work on the premise of time not being linear? We always have to think that if we go back in the past and change this or that, it must have consequences for the future but in our world the nature of time is still kind of mysterious and in a fictional world you're obviously free to construct time to work however you want. Go back in time, kill your dad, go back to present and you still exist both with a dad and a dead dad. Farscape
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Kazy posted:Did I miss something or did they just not bring up Data having a daughter already at all? I feel like they hinted at Lal, but maybe that was just me remembering Lal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I feel like they hinted at Lal, but maybe that was just me remembering Lal. I feel like they look similar enough to be intentional. edit: Ok time to give my highly influential and incredibly important takes on the new Star Trek show, as I'm sure you have all been waiting patiently: it was ok, not great, I'll give them a chance with more episodes. Not a fan of the contemporary action movie-esque production style for Picard, but I think it looks a lot better than Discovery at least, and that's the way they tides are moving. A big part of me wishes they made it look exactly like TNG/DS9, complete with matte paintings and outside sets that are clearly on a soundstage, but that time has passed us  Wish they did something like in Emissary with the flashback to the tragedy of the Saratoga and how that set the emotional stage for Sisko, and harmonized with the mood of the rest of the cast among DS9 scarred by war and occupation. There was a brief glimpse of that with Picard's dream of Utopia Planitia being bombarded, but not with the same impact as the Saratoga. The interview was schlocky and felt like a lazy way of giving exposition for setting up the show. I am still interested in some of the threads they allude to in the pilot that could be interesting -- a massive refugee crisis and the humanitarian vs. "national security" conflicts, synthetic beings coming to the realization that their past is a lie, and coming to establish a new idea of 'self', and the inherent distrust in organic lifeforms vs. synthetic lifeforms (which has more development to reflect on in the current world than previous trek's did, with the rise of self and semi-self driving cars, the rise of machine learning and AI, and the massive improvements in robotics that have been developed since even Enterprise was last on the air). And in conclusion, Discovery sucks, DS9 rulez 🖕🖕 piratepilates fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I feel like they hinted at Lal, but maybe that was just me remembering Lal. Picard said Data always wanted a daughter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Are there any time travel fictions that work on the premise of time not being linear? We always have to think that if we go back in the past and change this or that, it must have consequences for the future but in our world the nature of time is still kind of mysterious and in a fictional world you're obviously free to construct time to work however you want. Go back in time, kill your dad, go back to present and you still exist both with a dad and a dead dad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Are there any time travel fictions that work on the premise of time not being linear? We always have to think that if we go back in the past and change this or that, it must have consequences for the future but in our world the nature of time is still kind of mysterious and in a fictional world you're obviously free to construct time to work however you want. Go back in time, kill your dad, go back to present and you still exist both with a dad and a dead dad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:26
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Farscape Well, Farscape worked more on the lines that time has a set course and while you can alter it to some degree, it's going to kind of elastically spring back to the general shape it was headed for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Khanstant posted:Are there any time travel fictions that work on the premise of time not being linear? We always have to think that if we go back in the past and change this or that, it must have consequences for the future but in our world the nature of time is still kind of mysterious and in a fictional world you're obviously free to construct time to work however you want. Go back in time, kill your dad, go back to present and you still exist both with a dad and a dead dad. Dragon Ball Z comes to mind, though that more has time travel explicitly work with branching timelines, and also the characters aren't entirely sure how it works. (and as said it becomes a hilarious clusterfuck in Super, since the gods also have time travel and it works differently. Also they enforce a monopoly on it, though Beerus is relatively reasonable about it. Also if you're powerful enough you can literally smash through the walls of time. Well, DC did it first) FlamingLiberal posted:The Prophets on DS9 do not see time linearly and are very confused about beings that do. Everything has already happened, in their view. Interestingly, the time travel incidents in DS9 involving them are implied to be one of the most stable forms of time travel in Star Trek, or at least have the least questions asked about it compared to Past Tense. The Star Trek approach to time travel seems to be that it isn't that hard to do, at least with 23rd and 24th century technology, but the results are unpredictable and poorly understood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
Has it been 18 years since Farscape was last on tv? I need a revival of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:43
|
|
|
FAQ About Time Travel is a fun film where the bunch of nerds stuck traveling back and forth keep having nerdy discussions about how it works I must watch that film again
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
I find it kind of amusing whenever these realism in time travel nitpicks happen because there is no such thing as scientific accuracy in this arena.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I find it kind of amusing whenever these realism in time travel nitpicks happen because there is no such thing as scientific accuracy in this arena. Sounds like someone isn't familiar with a little show called Time Tunnel
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
marktheando posted:But who made the glasses that Bones gave Kirk? I never got the impression that the glasses were some kind of eternal object looping through time. Kirk was just making a little joke.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
My no poo poo favorite time travel mechanics are from AD&D 2e Chronomancer Gotta run one of those again someday
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
I'm going to go ahead and say it: I enjoyed the Dahj action sequences, I liked seeing them and would welcome more. I think they did a great job making her seem like a potential murder machine in a believable way. It was pretty cool when she threw that Romulan assassin/CIA-dude against the railing and you hear his spine crack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:I never got the impression that the glasses were some kind of eternal object looping through time. Kirk was just making a little joke. They totally are, they have no origin. They appear in 1986 when Kirk sells them, and disappear when he goes back in time. piratepilates posted:I'm going to go ahead and say it: I enjoyed the Dahj action sequences, I liked seeing them and would welcome more. I think they did a great job making her seem like a potential murder machine in a believable way. It was pretty cool when she threw that Romulan assassin/CIA-dude against the railing and you hear his spine crack. Agreed. There are lots of good things about TNG that modern Trek should copy, the fight choreography is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Agreed. There are lots of good things about TNG that modern Trek should copy, the fight choreography is not one of them. This is one hundred percent true BUT someone better throw a two handed overhead punch at some point during the series It's like "I have a bad feeling about this" in SW. I'll miss it if it's not there once per season
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:This is one hundred percent true BUT someone better throw a two handed overhead punch at some point during the series Oh absolutely the double axe handle is a very powerful and cool move
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
I mean, I'd rather have a badly choreographed fight with characters I like that have something at stake, than an impressive one with characters I don't know or care about. Hopefully the future pew pew/face melting/exploding sequences will carry a little more weight once the characters are established and we know more about what's going on. Trek action and what general audiences consider action has never had much overlap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The Prophets on DS9 do not see time linearly and are very confused about beings that do. Everything has already happened, in their view. Almost, everything is always happening from their perspective. All times are "now" to them like Dr. Manhattan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
marktheando posted:They totally are, they have no origin. They appear in 1986 when Kirk sells them, and disappear when he goes back in time. [citation needed] There's nothing (except a very particular interpretation of Kirk's joke) to suggest they aren't a perfectly ordinary pair of glasses that happened to get brought back in time and left there, so for a few centuries there were two of them. Let's say that on Vulcan at the start of the movie, a pebble got stuck in the tread of Kirk's shoe. It came back in time with them, and it fell out when he and Spock were walking around the aquarium. Is that pebble an eternal object too? Does it have to somehow find its way back to Vulcan by the 23rd century so it can be there on the landing platform to get stuck in Kirk's shoe again? Or does that pebble just exist in two places for a while before the original disappears aboard the Bounty? e: Or an even better example: Data's head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:[citation needed] The argument is based on the idea that when Kirk sells the glasses to the guy, they eventually are acquired by Bones and given back to Kirk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:The argument is based on the idea that when Kirk sells the glasses to the guy, they eventually are acquired by Bones and given back to Kirk. I know. My point is that there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that it's what actually happens. And we have a very strong counterexample showing that that's NOT how it works: Data's head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 20:16
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:I know. My point is that there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that it's what actually happens. And we have a very strong counterexample showing that that's NOT how it works: Data's head. That's a poor example, unless Dr. Soong used Data's head from 1890 as the basis to build Data. In your example: His head is blasted off in 1890 Soong builds Data's head in the 2050s Data goes back in time in 2366 His body comes back to 2366 And his head, which time travelled the long way, is reattached in 2366. There's a body loop and a head loop, but with the glasses, which are heavily implied to be the exact same pair: McCoy buys them in the 2280s, gives them to Kirk Lenses (300 years old since they're fixed in the 1980s) break in the battle with Khan Kirk goes to 1986 Sells them to the dealer, he sees 300 year old lenses that are broken, thinks they're from the 17th century or so because the lenses are old Dealer replaces the lenses The glasses take the long way to the 2200s McCoy buys them in the 2280s. It's a closed loop with no distinct "creation" point like Data has. We know that Data is created in the 2250s or so. Your comparison absolutely works if they used Data's head buried under San Francisco to build Data in the first place, though. MichiganCubbie fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jan 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 20:33
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:I know. My point is that there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that it's what actually happens. And we have a very strong counterexample showing that that's NOT how it works: Data's head. I wouldn't say there is nothing whatsoever to suggest it. Kirk seems to imply that he will sell these glasses and McCoy will later acquire them to give them as a gift. "Excuse me, weren't those a birthday present from Dr. McCoy?" "And they will be again, that's the beauty of it."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
I always thought the line about the glasses being a gift again was saying that the second "gift" was the money he got by selling them. The time loop interpretation is better, but it's just a little joke, it's not supposed to explicitly say they are time loop glasses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
MichiganCubbie posted:With the glasses, which are heavily implied to be the exact same pair: Why do the frames have to be an eternal indestructible paradoxical looping object, but you're fine with the lenses being ordinary items that were manufactured, hung around for a few centuries, then went back in time and were in two places at once from 1986 to 2286? (In your example, one set of lenses would be mounted in the frames and one set in a landfill somewhere.) What makes the objects so different? Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the glasses (lenses included) were made in the 18th century or so, hung around for five hundred years, went back in time, and then there were two of them (one with a broken lens) from 1986 to 2286? It's no different than Data's head, Chekov's phaser, or a pebble stuck to Kirk's shoe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:07
|
|
|
I do like the idea that Kirk made Bones buy them AGAIN after they got back to the 23rd century.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:Why do the frames have to be an eternal indestructible paradoxical looping object, but you're fine with the lenses being ordinary items that were manufactured, hung around for a few centuries, then went back in time and were in two places at once from 1986 to 2286? (In your example, one set of lenses would be mounted in the frames and one set in a landfill somewhere.) I mean it's a predestination paradox either way, so I'm not sure why you are so insistent it can't be the same pair looping endlessly, when that's what we are told in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
I saw Casino Royale (tng 2x12) back in 1993-ish when I was a kid, but rediscovered and devoured multiple times all of trek except for TAS and TOS in 2013. Saw all the movies multiple times(even TMP till Undiscovered Country), but was always cautious when it comes to TOS/TAS. I don't want to break the magic of Trek and respect I have for TOS by watching it and seeing all the flawed effects, the famous Kirk vs Gorn fight scene etc. I even interested my family into watching Trek with me but they also stayed away from TOS not to break respect. Should I watch it or shouldn't I? Honest opinions please, genuinely worried to be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Watch loving everything
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:58
|
|
