Talk:Future's End, Part II (episode)

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference

Contents 1 Episode talk page 1.1 Maintenance links 2 Continuity Error? (Should I add it?) 3 Stardate 4 Paradox? 5 Another way home 6 Removed

[edit] Continuity Error? (Should I add it?)

When Janeway returns to the bridge after firing the torpedo, she has burns on the left side of her face. The doctor urges her to go to Sickbay but she refuses and goes to the bridge.

After talking with Braxton, her face is suddenly clear. No burns. It sounded like a continuity error (filming stopped and began again but they forgot that detail).

--205.237.164.110 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• No. Episode articles and the background information section of episode articles are not for nitpicks-- they are for nothing but behind the scenes/production information. --Alan del Beccio 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stardate

The stardate listed on this page is 50132.5 But at Startrek.com, it is 50312.5 I don't have access to the episode. Is this simply a typo here? The same stardate is listed for Part I. Jdvelasc 05:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The stardate listed here for this episode was clearly wrong (Janeway cites the stardate just before the final scene in the mess hall). I have corrected it to 50312.5 (two numbers were transposed). However, it is still listed incorrectly in the matrix for VOY season 3, and I don't know how to change that section. I was not paying attention during Part I, so the other stardate may have been mentioned in that episode, but it seems highly unlikely and the updated stardate should apply to both parts. 1 November 2007

[edit] Paradox?

Normally my understanding of Star Trek's temporal physics is good however I was left slightly perplexed about the events of this episode. If the Aeon was destroyed by Voyager before Starling could travel into the 29th century then the temporal explosion would not have occured and the solar system not destroyed and Voyager also would not have travelled to the 29th century in pursuit of Starling. Thus Braxton would not have detected debris from its secondary hull and would not have travelled back to destroy Voyager and not end up crashing in the 20th century. If this didn't happen then from dialogue in the episode it would seem the Earth's computer age would not have happened (at least not in the 20th century) and it's possible the Star Trek we know wouldn't have existed. If you see my point. --The NCC Factor 20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would consider this to be the most confusing of time travel stories. As Braxton said, A leads B which leads to C. A. The Temporal Explosion occurs, leading Braxton to travel back in time to B. Where he attempts to destroy Voyager, but they resist, leading to C. Where they both end up in 20th cenutry Earth, where the time machine falls into D. Henry Starling's hands, where attempts to travel to the 29th century, which would lead back to A However, Voyager stops him, so A never happens, and neither does B, which means Voyager should have been right back where it started. (Braxton shouldn't of had to sent them back) Since Voyager was still there, it is possible, that every that happened after Braxton's arrival in 1967 did happen for real. (Although, Braxton saying he has not experienced that time-line complicates things, unless at that time (in his life) this episode's events are in his future)--Sml 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another way home

Didn't Kirk use a sub-light maneuver around the sun to get himself from the 1960's to the late 2200's? Couldn't Janeway, instead of following the timeship back, used the maneuver to get back hereself? Then again, with a 29th century ship afoot, they may not have been able to get that far without being caught and dragged back to the Delta Quadrant by force. Just something to wonder about.

[edit] Removed

• Reference to 47: When Dunbar activates the satellite to transport Starling back from Voyager the computer of the timeship acknowledges: "Satcom 47 activated."
• The Doctor mentions having recently undergone a severe programming loss, and that he is still in the process of recovering his memory files. Presumably, this is a reference to the events of "The Swarm", several episodes prior to this one.

Removed 47 and presumably doesn't mean it is. — Morder 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not certain, granted, but I find it highly unlikely that he went through some other sort of massive program loss would have happened. It seemed blatantly obvious, quite frankly.Fyre2387 18:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just that the 4-letter word "presumably" is an attention-getter around here. I also believe this reference is unequivocal and not a presumption or a speculation. "Recent" means 50252 to 50312 - 60 stardates, or about 20 days. If the Doctor had another massive programming loss during that time, he'd be, like, a vegetable. I support adding it back without the word "presumably". --TribbleFurSuit 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I readded the note, minus "presumably". Clear refs like this aren't speculation.– Cleanse 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's why we archive removed items here :) — Morder 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)