Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the ENT forum at The Trek BBS.
Why isn't the information that the Defiant was to be used instead of a 31st century ships in the background information here?
- As the person who updated the "did you know"'s, I remember hearing it on one of the commentaries you can download at StarTrek.com. So it's true, but only half of them did I get off Memory Alpha. I've added it now though. -AJHalliwell 06:03, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
'bigger on the inside' Edit
Any interest in including a sidenote about another well known time travelling box that's also bigger on the inside than on the out? I doubt it's a coincidence considering the number of classic scifi references in this episode--monkey2:twice the monkey 17:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are remembering the time pod seen in TNG. I don't remember this one having that quality. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not only that, wikipedia already assumes this point, but I'm not really sure if their blurb has a source or not, but it is pretty obvious. Here too--monkey2:twice the monkey 17:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
In BG info it says a part of a news article about George W. Bush's State of the Union address was among the things shown. Was it legible on screen (could provide some new articles) or is it reproduced somewhere? Kennelly 17:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- The full news article can be found here
- I looked at the episode and found that only the first part of the article is reproduced in the temporal database, which are these words:
- The State of the Union: Frightened
- President Bush did his best to scare the bejesus out of his audience Tuesday to make his case for war. And afterward, he was probably the only person to get a good night's sleep.
- By Jake Tapper
- Wednesday, January 29, 2003
- The speech was two-thirds finished and President Bush had yet to even say the word "Iraq."
- Finally, 47 minutes into it, Bush began laying out the argument that the electorate and the rest of the world had been waiting for -- why he seems to be about to send Americans' parents, children, spouses, siblings and friends into harm's way to unseat Saddam Hussein.
- He laid out some justification for such a war, with the righteous determination that the U.S. would go it alone if need be -- "free people will set the course of history" -- and the attempt at reassuring words that "we are winning" the war on terrorism and "we will prevail" in Iraq. There was notably less talk of Saddam Hussein's nuclear threat than in the past -- but still plenty to scare the bejesus out of most Americans. Toward the end of the speech, Bush even gave the day when the countdown would begin: On Feb. 5, Bush said , the U.S. will officially pressure the United Nations Security Council "to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world."
- But before this point, the speech, Bush's second State of the Union address, had been an odd and not entirely successful one. The self-regarded compassionate conservative hopped back and forth from proposing hydrogen cars to banning so-called partial birth abortions, from trying to end AIDS in Africa to slamming trial lawyers. It was less a negotiation down the middle of the road than a hopscotch from bleeding-heart liberal to bedrock conservative.
- Which means there are some new articles that have to be created! ;-) --Jörg 18:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
could someone please upload a screencap or give the extact time it was show. I watched the supposed scene several times and could not detect it. thank you
I removed the following from the uncredited co-stars list:
Presumably, this refers to the crispy critter they found aboard the Time-travel pod, but he was, most likely, only a prop. If so, that is why he was uncredited!
- That's not all you were changing...
- Anyway, we credit CGI characters, and he is a character, even if we have to simply say "mannequin", he needs to be recognized so a page can be created. --Alan 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh. The reason most of these characters are not credited is because they don't have lines. That said, it makes sense to credit them here when they are people who might be seen in other productions, even outside of Star Trek. It might even make sense to credit a CGI character in some circumstances. But to credit a hunk of charred plastic as an "unknown performer" is ridiculous to the extreme!
BTW, I never said that was all I had changed for this episode! Are changes not allowed on this wiki when they are made to correct errors and add relevant information? — Greg (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please calm down, both. Perhaps we can list the "prop" under uncredited co-stars like this : A prop mannequin as the Timeship Pilot. And then we could add a link to the Star Trek Auctions listing, if I'm not wrong it should be included or I saw it in the Christie's auction catalogue. The placing of the "role" is definitly not the best. Is this a possibility? – Tom 00:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in here, Tom. My real problem is that he was reverting my changes without even notifying me of why. It is as if he has staked out this page for his own. I respect his contributions to the wiki but that does not give him the right to simply reverse my edits. Look for yourself at the terrible things I did to "his" page: http://memory-alpha.org/index.php?title=Future_Tense_%28episode%29&curid=3486&diff=821450&oldid=821448
I just watched this episode and wanted to add a couple of quotes and correct the last one per the episode. I saw a couple of other things that could be improved and changed them, too, as is my right! Of course, he will say it is his right to reverse them, but there must be some middle ground here! — Greg (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is there, or is there not a explanation here? 
- Then what eventually happened again? 
- You did it again, despite my explanation, which follows a format that is or should be on most all episode pages.
- Regardless, I explained myself on my talk page, specifically about this character, which is in addition to what "started this", but I will explain it here too:
- He/it/timeship guy was a "character", an individual who appeared in the episode, regardless of what it said or did not say, regardless of who or what played it, it's not merely something that should be removed and ignored. And certainly, a new subsection can be created for "it", if necessary, because it is still just as valid a "character", just like the dead Xindi corpse that came later, or for that matter, any other background "character", or "voice". --Alan 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The timeship pilot was a character. It might have been a character without an actor, or performance, but we credit many such characters. We never saw Geordi's sister, hence no actor, but she gets a page (and a mention in the episode page for "Interface"). We have a page for Mogh, and no actor ever portrayed him (and even mentioned on three different episode pages). We have a page for Betty Riker, and regardless that no actor played her she has three mentions. This Timeship Pilot is a character worthy of mention. Alan's point is that the Timeship Pilot needs his own page as a character within Star Trek canon. If he's a character within Star Trek canon, he needs to be referenced on the page of the episode in which he appeared. It may sound silly to have a page for a mannequin, but just because you think something is silly doesn't mean it isn't also canon. (Almost lost post to editing conflict) Hossrex 01:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying that it should not receive mention on the page somewhere or even have its own page written about it. The point is that the mention does not belong in the list of credits, as is true for the rest of the characters you mentioned. The fact of the matter is that there was no such page written when I first read this article, despite the apparent importance that Alan ascribes to it!
- In my defense, I didn't simply delete the reference and move on. I brought the subject to this discussion page to suggest that something else might be done with the character, but it did not belong in the list of credits. That is exactly what the discussion page is for.
- I think you're over emphasizing the importance Alan has placed on this discussion. Simply because he feels its the right decision doesn't mean he ascribes any predetermined level of apparent importance. Its my opinion that Alan only believes it has a place there for easy reference. If however it turns out that Alan is rabidly frothing at the mouth because he has a deep seeded psychosis regarding inanimate objects being added to cast lists... than perhaps he should be stopped, committed, and heavily medicated. Was this what you had in mind Alan? Hossrex 21:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That was completely unnecessary and uncalled for. --Alan 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- The whole point was that Alan clearly isn't insane, and rabidly frothing at the mouth. It was the antithesis of an insult. I agree with him. He was supposed to laugh, and say "no, that wasn't what I intended". It makes no sense that he would be as passionate about this subject as Greg has implied, and I was trying to emphasize that. I apologize if it was taken the wrong way, but I hope Alan understands that not only wasn't I trying to attack him, I was trying to defend him. Please read what I said again. Either *I'M* insane, or it was clearly a joke. Ha ha. No? Whatever. My attacking him there makes no sense based on what'd happened previously in this discussion. Hossrex 21:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth: If you look closely at the dead alien, you can see that it is not just a dummy but a Human in make-up. You can also see him move his hands slightly, especially if you watch his scenes in fast forward. It's hard to keep your hands still at exactly the same angle for such a long time. So, there is somebody behind the make-up. --Jörg 10:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reply to Hossrex: Ahh, in that case, my apologies. It seemed to me like you were attacking Alan for his views. Actually, I probably shouldn't have even gotten myself involved in this discussion to begin with. Recloaking! :P --From Andoria with Love 19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Top speed of the enterprise??? Edit
So during the suliban chase T'Pol says that the Vulcan Ship is 600,000 km away and 18 seconds later they are 200,000 km away when Archer orders them out of warp.
Calculating this out you get .083c for the top speed of the enterprise.
Obviously this is a mistake on the part of the continuity staff.
- The title of this episode is a similar play on words to the DS9 Episode "Past Tense, Part I".
If there is evidence such a use of words was done deliberately, this can be readded.--31dot 11:54, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Warp / Distance nit Edit
In the previous episode, "Stigma", Enterprise was in orbit of Weytahn/Paan Mokar; approximately 16 light years from Earth (if Vulcan is indeed Epsilon Eridani A). Then in this episode, it is repeatedly noted that Enterprise is now very far from Earth and Vega Colony. Admiral Forrest says that the Future Ship was found 100 light years away (from Earth). This cannot be possible. Even travelling at maximum warp 5 continuously, it would take 170 days for the NX-01 to cover this distance. That last dated episode is "Catwalk" which ends on September 2152. Following "Dawn" and "Stigma", "Future Tense" probably occurs around mid-October. For Enterprise to cover 100 light years would take them to March 2153, sometime around the events in "Bounty"! 22.214.171.124 22:29, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
- We don't put nitpicks in articles, especially when that much calculation/analysis is required. 31dot 22:51, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
How do we know which terrilian race Daniels/Corpse is descended from as the corpse had no form of ridges and by the 31st century the delta quadrant would be easily accessible Hutchy01 (talk) 04:40, April 5, 2014 (UTC)