Talk:Time's Arrow (episode)

Nitpick
In 1893, Samuel Clemens was traveling on book tours, mostly in Europe. He only returned to the U.S. briefly (New York City) and moved his family to Berlin, Germany. It is unlikely that he was in the San Francisco area at all.--Reginald Barclay 14:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the real world. This is fiction. :) -- Sulfur 14:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are so many differences between the Trek world and the real world already. For example, Devidians didn't visit our world. Also, in 1996, there was no Eugenics war, and no launch of an extremely large (by our standards) interplanetary spacecraft into interstellar space. Unless I slept through it. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you entirely certain?--Reginald Barclay 15:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I said I could have been asleep. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but fiction is much more entertaining when it is at least believable (Not "realistic" but "believable"). How hard would it have been for the writers to set the story in a time period in which Twain was actually IN San Francisco? Mistakes like this are a sign of pure laziness on the part of the writers. Say "Oh, its fiction" is just a way of absolving them and lowering our standards. Feh! - EKW


 * Thats precisely the difference between "realistic", and "believable". It might not be "realistic" that Twain was in San Fran during this time...  but for it to be "unbelievable", it would require that he was a robot, or some suck zaniness.  I feel pretty comfortable saying that the three people who knew what Twain was doing in 1893 are intelligent enough to pass this of under "suspension of disbelief".  Not to mention what Cobra said...  it isn't our universe.  – Hossrex 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "it isn't our universe" is just a convenient way of explaining away mistakes on the part of the writers/creators of the show. And my disbelief cannot be suspended in the face of obvious factual errors. It is bad enough the writers ignore physics when it suits them, but having them ignore history too is just crap.
 * No offense then, but that is your problem, not ours. Most of us are able to realize that this isn't our universe, that it has massive differences, like Lenin holding the revolution in 1916, Eugenics Wars in 1996, some really weird stuff with Chronowerx later on, etc. The fact is that it isn't so out there for Clemens to have been in San Fransisco, so deal with it. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm with OuroborosCobra - after all, there's a huge difference between unlikely and impossible...Caducus 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anvil
If we get a photo of the bellboy bringing the anvil to Data, I'll make an Anvil page! :D (but then again, this is Paramount, not Warner Bros.) Otherwise, I've redirected Anvil to Wikipedia. --vorik111 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr Mot
Is it worth putting on the page that at the poker game one of the actors is the same guy who plays Mr Mot? Caducus 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course. In the appropriate area. -- Kooky 21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Riverworld
"* The character of Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain, made a significant role (well, protagonist role) in Philip José Farmer's Riverworld series of SF novels, too." Samuel Clemens has been used as a historical character in lots of things...but this is a Star Trek wiki. Removed. --Golden Monkey 18:48, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

A Tale Of Two Heads
What is the explanation for there being an "extra" Data head in the universe?--172.191.254.141 07:01, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to explain it further if you didn't get the ending of part two. - 07:15, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did they ever really explain how a second head came about? After all, we begin the episode by seeing Data's head being examined by Data.--172.191.254.141 07:33, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * In essense, the plot would only make sense if, say, the Enterprise crew at some point find a headless Data and then, later finding the 500 year old head, attach the head and activate him (and send him on his merry way back in time to get his head blown off). As the story was written, we are still stuck with a 24th century that contained two copies of Data's head simultaneously.--172.191.254.141 07:48, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Go back in time 5 minutes. Now walk into the room you were in 5 minutes ago. There are now two of you in that room. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:50, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, have you watched Part II yet? --OuroborosCobra talk 07:51, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, and five minutes ago I would have looked up to see my future self walk into the room. I guess all that matters is that time travel is possible in the Star Trek universe (though probably not this one) so any and all silliness related to it must be accepted.--172.191.254.141 08:37, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're thinking of this from a parallel linear perspective. That is not the correct perspective if you are to understand how there can be two instances of Data's head at the same time. Instead, you need to think of the history of Data's head as a ribbon that starts off and ends up straight, but has a loop-back mid-way though it's progress through linear time. If that gives you a headache think about it, try and wrap your head around it like this:


 * Imagine a timeline. You can think of the line as starting when Dr. Soong (Data's creator) built the head. That's the start of Data's "Personal" timeline. Follow that line until Data encounters the head that is 500 years older (and non-functioning) than the head that's on his shoulders. Keep following Data's functioning-and-on-his-shoulders head until it jumps back in time with it's body. (Do not follow the non-functioning head.) At that point, Data's personal timeline takes a loop back in time to a moment in linear time before the line was started, and then proceeds forward a few days (weeks? months? the episode is not clear on how long Data was in the past.) This time-travel creates the "bow" or "loop-back" in Data's timeline. Then Data's head becomes separated from it's body, ceases to function, and stays in a mining cavern under San Fransisco for aproximately 500 years. Note, however, that the severed head does NOT jump forward in time, but rather it simply ages through the normal passage of time. The head then becomes reattached to Data's body when LaForge puts it back on Data's recovered body. The body, interestingly enough, also had a odd path through time, but a path that was independent from it's severed head because it jumped forward in time when the head did not!


 * And so, as I hope you can see, there are not actually two heads; There's really just the one head. The point where Data encounters his own (older) head and there are two instances of it at the same time is seemingly a predestination paradox, or a knot in the loop. The paradox is this: To the outside observer (that is, from a historical perspective), Data's head existed BEFORE it was created; But from the perspective of Data's head (it's personal perspective) it simply got displaced in time 500 years into the past and had to then wait 500 years to be reattached to it's body.


 * Thus, Data's head's personal timeline starts in the 24th centurey, jumps back in time via alien time-travel technology, and then ages normally (does not time travel, just get's older) until it becomes re-attached to Data's body. Data's body, on the other hand, jumped back in time, lost it's head, and then jumped forward in time, wherefound it's head again. Thus, before this episode, Data's head was approximately the same age as his body was (Dr. Soong may have built the one some time before he built the other, or he may have built both simultaneously; we can't know because it was never specified), but after this episode his head is 500 years older than his body.


 * Or put another way, time travel is incredibly dangerous... and you could loose your head if you think too much about it. 64.201.203.3 09:29, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * How is any of the above relevant to changing this article, the intended purpose of talk pages?--31dot 10:08, January 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of the line from the Voyager "Parallax" - Paris: "Am I making any sense?", Janeway: "No, but that's all right." Jswitte (talk) 03:10, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Overlords of Delgon
A production note ought to include some reference to the fact that the 'bad guys' in this episode bear a striking resemblance to E E Smith's Overlords of Delgon from the Lensman series (1937).

There are differences, of course, but see from this run down of how they work:
 * They mentally control people and get them to their home cavern
 * Using illusions they stop people knowing whats going on
 * In their cavern the consume the life force of the entities captured, in a group setting
 * If left unchecked they will consume and destroy their prey

77.100.39.143 21:14, May 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence that the writers of the episode or other Trek staff were aware of this alleged similarity, then there could be such a note; otherwise there cannot be such a note, as we only note citeable, deliberate similarities with or knowledge of other works. 31dot 09:48, May 19, 2012 (UTC)