Star Trek: The Next Generation

"Yesterday's Enterprise"

4 stars

Air date: 2/19/1990
Teleplay by Ira Steven Behr & Richard Manning & Hans Beimler & Ronald D. Moore
Story by Trent Christopher Ganino & Eric A. Stillwell
Directed by David Carson

Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan

There aren't many episodes that announce themselves as instant classics, but "Yesterday's Enterprise" was one of them. It was an instant classic when it aired, and in the years since it has become an enduring one. It's one of the franchise's very best time-travel stories. (Every Trek series has had at least one that vied for similar thematic territory, whether it was TOS's "City on the Edge of Forever," DS9's "Children of Time," Voyager's "Timeless," or Enterprise's "E2.")

A rift in space and time allows the Enterprise's predecessor, the 1701-C under Captain Rachel Garrett (Tricia O'Neil), to emerge in an alternate version of the future and come face-to-face with the 1701-D. In this much different timeline, Starfleet has been at war with the Klingons for 20 years. The Enterprise-C's passage through time allowed it to escape a deadly battle with the Romulans after the Enterprise-C had come to the aid of a besieged Klingon outpost.

When the writers' were making their decisions in creating this story, perhaps the most crucial was their use of Guinan, who has a perception that transcends the timeline. She knows, with every fiber of her being, that the timeline is not right and that the Enterprise-C must go back, even if that means certain death for its crew at the hands of the Romulans. Because even their deaths could change history, as a gesture seen by the Klingons that could ultimately pave the way to peace rather than war.

What this does for the story is turn it into a moral quagmire with massive implications, where the characters must make impossible decisions. What we're really talking about here is playing God. More than 40 billion people have died in the Klingon/Federation war, and returning the Enterprise-C's to the past could prevent all of it. Picard, as one man, holds the power to make the decision. In a compelling exchange, Picard flat-out asks Guinan who's to say whether one timeline is more "proper" than the other? Her reply: "I suppose I am." To frame this as a 20th-century question: What if you could go back in time and kill Hitler? History would be, in Picard's words, irrevocably changed, but that would also mean undoing everything else that has happened since. Who knows whether you're alive or dead in the other timeline, and what implications that has on everything else unrelated to the variables you intend to change? (Of course, dramatic license means that this alternate timeline parallels the real one more closely than it ever possibly could; I myself subscribe to the chaos-theory/butterfly-effect school of thought.)

The question is of particular poignancy to Yar, who is alive in this version of the timeline and learns from Guinan that she died a meaningless death in the other one. This, along with her newfound camaraderie with Enterprise-C's Lt. Castillo (Christopher McDonald), prompts her to go back with the Enterprise-C and die a death that serves a purpose. It's impressive how much ground this episode seems to cover in a single hour. In addition to the moral and cosmic questions, it provides an interesting Trek history lesson that fills in gaps about one of the Enterprise's mysterious predecessors, and it manages to somewhat mitigate the effect of the ignominious death that befell Yar in the first season.

As an exercise in tone, the episode is remarkable, featuring a stark contrast to the other timeline. The lighting, uniforms, and performances all indicate a darker military existence. Picard, in particular, is notably more grim and intense; Patrick Stewart conveys a different and powerful urgency but never goes overboard. The last act, in which the Enterprise-D must protect the Enterprise-C from Klingon attack as it returns through the rift, is one of TNG's most intense and memorable battle scenes. As the Enterprise takes a pounding, it becomes clear that they cannot survive. Only by sacrificing the Enterprise-D does the Enterprise-C have a chance to rewrite history. Picard's announcement to the crew says it all: "Let's make sure that history never forgets the name ... Enterprise."

Previous episode: A Matter of Perspective
Next episode: The Offspring

◄ Season Index

108 comments on this review

Lee Roberts
Tue, Nov 27, 2007, 7:38am (UTC -5)
I've not had the opportunity to watch these episodes for many years, but whenever I think about the best that Star Trek (any flavour) has been able to offer, I always come back to the masterpiece that is Yesterday's Enterprise. I still remember the power of the scenes between Picard and Guinan ("Not good enough, damn it! Not good enough!"), my genuine unease as Picard revealed to Enterprise C counterpart Rachel Garrett that "the war goes very badly for the Federation - far worse than is generally known" and the iconic image of our good captain manning the phaser controls to the last, with everyone around him dead and the bridge burning in the background. Simply magical.
Damien
Sun, Mar 7, 2010, 6:17am (UTC -5)
Yesterday's Enterprise - I do agree that this is one of the epic TNG episodes, deservedly a classic. However, I do find a couple of things problematic.

How many times in the past have we had main characters taken over by an alien presence or behave erratically due to some kind of infection or other? Lots. So now we have to take Guinan's word for the fact that 'something' doesn't feel right and that the new ship needs to be sacrificed to correct things, based on no evidence whatsoever. Despite Picard's so-called protestations, he nevertheless decides that Guinan's gut it right. Didn't even request a medical scan first.

It just smacks too much of a belief in mysticism. Somehow Guinan transcends time itself. She's conveniently vague on specifics and yet knows that Tasha died a meaningless death. Hmmm.

Adding to the mystical mumbo-jumbo is the notion of preferred destinies. Things weren't 'meant' to be like this. According to whom? If things are 'meant' to be in a certain way, then it means that we have no free will, that everything is preordained and we're just going through the motions.

It is the use of these metaphysical plot devices which sours my enjoyment of what is otherwise an excellent episode.
Elliott
Thu, Sep 15, 2011, 3:49pm (UTC -5)
RE : "Yesterday's Enterprise"

I've never understood the stance that YE is an "instant classic" as you say. It's a decent episode to be sure, but there are some big problems with it. The largest has to do with the central moral dilemma you praise. You frame it in 20th century terms (if one could kill Hitler, etc), but this is a non-issue. Such an action is impossible. It is interesting from a purely tech/timeline perspective, but it has no real relevance.

The issue becomes, is our future defined by our choices or by the random concurrence of events? Guinan's stance (and the episode's) is that the 24th century "correct" present is based largely upon a minor detail in the plot of its past rather than the espoused view that humanity worked its rear end off to build a quasi-paradisiacal future.

Picard's choice to respect Guinan's intuition as some sort of trans-temporal mystic goes against character like few other things I've seen in TNG. And what is the lesson here? To whom are we supposed to allegorise her? It's a lot of new-age preachy nonsense about "trusting one's feelings" which distills the power of the Star Trek universe.

I don't mean to imply I don't like the episode. The rôle of Yar in particular was excellent as were the mood and pacing, as you mentioned. I'd say it's a 3 star episode--solid and entertaining and thought-provoking, but hardly a classic.
Van_Patten
Tue, Jun 12, 2012, 11:00pm (UTC -5)
Elliott

I've endured your 'comments' on these threads long enough-for you to call this a 7/10 ( on a conventional scale) episode s really the final straw -unquestionably in the top three episodes across the board, I'd suggest you post on a 'Sesame Street' page as that seems more your style....
Elliott
Wed, Jun 13, 2012, 9:12pm (UTC -5)
@Van-Patten :

Yes, indeed, your heroic ability to endure opinions clearly demonstrates the hyper-maturity to denigrate others for thinking that an episode is good but not great, rather than just great. That's some high-level thinking. I can see why you feel justified in equating my "style" with a children's programme.
Van Patten
Sun, Jun 17, 2012, 11:21pm (UTC -5)
Elliott

Apologies - think I'd got carried away and I should have more respect given how many reviews/comments you have put in. What I am curious about (and please indulge me on this) is to why you have such a downer on DS9 in particular but also other episodes that are considered seminal. I take your point that it's possibly somewhat out of character for Picard to make a risky decision based solely on Guinan's intuition but the episode is (primarily) set in a parallel reality-hence why it's so powerful. The change of tone, character and performances are noticeable and the guest cast is outstanding. I just don't see his thus can be anything under 4 stars on the Jammer scale.

That said, I apologise again for the flippant comment ( sadly you can't delete it once it's there) and any subsidiary comments will be in the realms of genuine questions/debates ather than cheap jibes.
Elliott
Wed, Jun 20, 2012, 5:24pm (UTC -5)
Thanks for the apology, Van Patten. Heartily accepted !

In response to what you say ...

"What I am curious about (and please indulge me on this) is to why you have such a downer on DS9 in particular but also other episodes that are considered seminal."

...I'll answer by quoting one of my favourite authors, theatre critics and philosophical chroniclers, Bryan Magee from his book "The Tristan Chord." His text is referring specifically to a particular kind of vitriol spouted by Nietzsche against Wagner's last opera "Parsifal," but the anecdote is perfectly suited to express my feelings about DS9's and other series' so-called "seminole" episodes (and he's a much better writer than I):

"[Nietzsche's criticism] is splendid stuff to read, but it is not so much uncomprehending as rejecting of understanding...They are profoundly disappointing, in fact; one would have hoped for the perceptive exposure of real faults and shortcomings, criticisms that strike home, palpable hits; but very few such are to be found. To anyone whom Wagner's work really speaks, none of Nietzsche's criticism of it has much validity or even a great deal of interest as serious criticism. Nietzsche rejects the pre-adopted Schopenhaurian attitudes and values with which Wagner's maturest works are saturated and attacks them with the same animosity as he attacks the philosophy of Schopenhauer--for the same reasons and with the same arguments. It is rather like a militant athiest of a music critic mounting an onslaught on Bach's 'St Matthew Passion' on the ground that it is saturated through and through with loathesome religious nonsense, and is for that reason a hateful work.
**
Such criticism is not so much inadequate as superfluous, irrelevant, however brilliantly written it may be. It embodies a fundamental non-comprehension of what art is. As a result, what Nietzsche says about Wagner could be read as even remotely plausible only by someone who is either unacquainted with Wagner's works or is impervious to their artistic merits...The resulting situation puts me in mind of the illuminating experience I had, at one point of my life, of being a theatre critic. Having been to all the theatre press nights myself, I was in the unusual position of having already seen the plays when I read reviews of them. And I discovered, perhaps not surprisingly, that one or two of my fellow critics were consistently penetrating judges of plays, productions and performances, while rather more of them (in my opinion, at least) were not, and kept missing the point or getting things wrong. However, some of the latter were brilliant journalists, and wrote articles that were a delight to read, whereas the best of the former was a pedestrian writer, and wrote dull articles. And I found that the ninety-nine per cent of readers who were in the position of reading the reviews without having seen the plays tended to assume that the brilliant writers were the best critics. In the absence of independent knowledge of what was being written about I suppose this was inevitable. Even I sometimes got great pleasure from reading their articles, when I knew these were being grossly unfair to a particular performance (as John Gielgud once said about reading Kenneth Tynan's reviews, 'it's wonderful if it isn't you') or were completely failing to give a true impression of the artistic merits of the play....[The criticisms'] decisive flaw lies in the fact that he never addresses himself to Wagner's works as works of art. He engages with them, at least when he is criticising them, only on the level of conceptual thinking, as if the works were first and foremost vehicles for ideas."

To translate into Star Trek terms (and I have insisted on this point repeatedly), to underrate a show or and episode because one does not agree with its ideas is both useless and cruel, but, conversely, to praise a work because one agrees with its ideas or its subversion of ideas with which one does not agree is equally useless and cruel. I do not idolise Star Trek because I am a communist or even because I hope for a future in which discrimination, poverty and greed-centric existence is all-but fossilised (although I happen to), but for the mythical resonance of this universe which happens to include those ideas. DS9 (and, to a lesser extent, "Yesterday's Enterprise") capitalised on the subversion of ideas integral to the Star Trek universe. If you remove those subversions, in some cases you're left with still great material (for example in DS9, Odo's character arc, or in YE, as I said, Tasha's character arc). In DS9's case, without those subversions, the series would collapse in on itself with insufficiently substantial characters or motivations. In YE's case, I don't believe that to be so. Nonetheless, it keeps the episode from being truly "great."

You did not bring up Voyager, but this ties in rather presciently. Those who criticised the show (including Jammer) harp continuously on what are perceived to be the series' "failed" ideas rather than its artistic merits. "Reset button" complaints and missing continuity, etc are endlessly ridiculed because they conflict with assumed ideas about what TV and that show in particular were supposed to convey.
William
Wed, Aug 29, 2012, 8:19pm (UTC -5)
I thought "Yesterday's Enterprise" was the apex of great Trek. Every single moment is wisely utilized. The confrontation between Picard and Guinan is riveting. I'm surprised they didn't do a two-parter, but I'm glad it was contained in one episode. Brilliant how they worked that.

Loved the ending, too, with Guinan and Geordi. "Tell me about Tasha Yar."
Paul
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 10:16am (UTC -5)
Interestingly, I think something was cut from this episode that could have made it even stronger.

There's a LOT of tension between Riker and Picard, but there's never a full-blown confrontation. I think one was cut ...

Watch the scene with Yar, Castillo, Riker and Picard. As Castillo and Yar leave, the camera has a brief shot of Riker looking at Picard. It LOOKS like he's about to start talking -- possibly objecting to the captain's decisions.

Obviously, the episode is amazingly good, but Riker and Picard butting heads might have made for interesting watching. The Picard/Riker dynamic in the first half of the series is one of TNG's strengths, and I think Riker's marginalization in the latter seasons (particularly season 7) is one of the reasons TNG really ran out of gas.
kurgan
Sat, Dec 22, 2012, 9:27pm (UTC -5)
I'm sorry, I just can't get behind the idea of this being a "classic." Are we to believe that in an alternate timeline, with years of terrible bloodshed, the Enterprise would be built entirely the same and with mostly the same crew? Preposterous! I give this one and a half stars, mostly for the performances.
Cormacolinde
Tue, Dec 25, 2012, 2:04pm (UTC -5)
I just rewatched this episode, and it is a classic - very good story, music and execution.

The plot has its problems, as do most episodes dealing with time travel.

Regarding the "mysticism" behind Guinan's hunches, I find it easier to accept than some other similar issues I've identified in my recent rewatching of the series. In the end, I conclude that Star Trek, TNG at the very least, is not Science-Fiction. It's Fantasy. It occurs in the future instead of the past, like other science fiction shows, but its mechanics are more akin to pseudoscientific fantasy mumbo-jumbo than more serious Science-Fiction.

Take as an example the workings of the sensors. They can scan ships going at warp speed that are light-years distant? In seconds? Not only does this make no sense in a relativistic Universe, it's not even self-consistent!

And Troi's "empathy" isn't more believable either, she might as well have magic powers! She can feel a person's emotions over light-years or in front of her at the same speed? How does that work exactly?

So I take it as fantasy and enjoy the show.
jay
Mon, Jan 14, 2013, 1:50pm (UTC -5)
I'm with kurgan...it's ludicrous that the greater setting is so different, but the immediate setting and the cast of characters are all the same.

It's the same thing that makes the mirror universe episodes ridiculous.
Ernie
Thu, Jan 31, 2013, 2:19pm (UTC -5)
I strongly believe that "Yesterday's Enterprise" was an instant classic in the true sense of the term. I am coming from the angle of the time in which it aired.

I am a real old time Trekker. I was born in 1955, so I was old enough to remember first hand the original series first run, (on an old dial-in-the-color TV). I really became a follower in the beginning of the 70s when ST was carried daily on
syndication. I was in my late teens going to the first ST conventions (accedently bumping into
Gene Roddenberry backstage behind the curtain just before he was about to go on.....I was lost..really!)

When the movies came out, we were in line for hours before showtime. I watched grown men crying when Spock died...which I thought was silly! That was until I was at the drive-in watching the Enterprise blow herself up...I was standing up in my sun-roof shaking my fist and yelling "you cant do that!!!"

So when STNG premiered in 87, me and my friends where hoping for the best, watching each and every episode. However, the first 2 seasons did not really seem to be Trek. There were some episodes that where OK, but nothing that could compare with earlier TOS or movies. People were wondering if the series would actually stay on.

Season 3 came along and there was a gradual improvement. When we arrived at the week before the showing of YE the commercials of the preview alone had us anticipating this episode more than all the previous ones put together. When it aired, we were not at all dissipointed. The story, characters, acting, music and special effects where so much better than anything previous on STNG. For the very first time, here was a Next Generation story that could hold its own against anything the original series had to offer. I still get chills listening to Picard proclaim " Never let history forget the name Enterprise".

Next Generation took off from that and never looked back. By the end of that season, radio stations were debating whether Patrick Stewart would return for season 4 after the Best of Both Worlds. TNG was truly accepted as Star Trek. Shortly thereafter, I was at a ST convention at the Shrine in LA, which was the last time all the original cast gathered as one including Gene Roddenberry in a wheel chair. There was just as much next gen fans, merchandice, excitement there as was the orginal. I believe the turning point was Yesterday's Enterprise.

PS...Van Patton and Elliot...thank you both for showing class in coming together to discuss your differences....refeshing in this age of dissing each other on the net

Ye Olde Fort
mike
Mon, Mar 4, 2013, 4:46am (UTC -5)
unlike others, I have no problem with the so-called improbabilities of Picard making the monumental decision to send the Enterprise-C back through the rift based solely on Guinan's intuition. All it takes is adherence to the temporal prime directive. Guinan is right. That ship does not belong here. That alone justifies the decision to send it back. What doesn't make sense is that Picard allows Tasha Year to go back with the Enterprise-C. Picard resists all of Riker's protests against sending the E-C back but then gives into Yar? All that aside, yes, this is a classic and not only that, but essential viewing if you're to understand why there is a half human half Romulan commander name Sela seen later in the series. There is one minor goof. At the very end when all is well and Guinan asks Geordi about Tasha Year, Geordi is wearing the uniform from the alternate timeline!
SpaceCadet
Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 12:00am (UTC -5)
YE is one of my favorite episodes of TREK and possibly my favorite episode period. It's always a toss-up between it and the first part of The Best of Both Worlds. I remember reading in a print interview where Rick Berman wish he had saved the idea of YE for a feature film. I'm sure that would have been awesome but as it is it's still a perfectly crafted dramatic hour of television.
The Romulans
Sun, May 5, 2013, 10:32pm (UTC -5)
I remember watching this episode when it first aired. I walked away on a high, wishing I could discuss it, or share it with someone. There aren't many episodes of any show that have made me feel that way. This episode has certainly stuck with me over the years since, a true stand out.

The only episode, to my mind, that has approached this same level of quality so far is Q Who and A Measure Of A Man. Although I am just starting Season 3 now, so maybe there are a few other gems in there.
Sintek
Fri, Jun 7, 2013, 12:59pm (UTC -5)
For an episode that begins with Worf dealing with constipation, it turned out ok. But the presence of Yar is an instant removal of 3 stars. Ugh, imagine how terrible this series would have been if Crosby stayed on.
dipads
Wed, Jul 17, 2013, 4:54pm (UTC -5)
I really enjoyed the female captain of the Enterprise C. I think she was marvelous in her role. Does anyone else also believe she could have made a good enough Captain Janeway? I wonder if she was ever mentioned as a possible candidate for the captain role on ST Voyager?
Grumpy
Wed, Jul 17, 2013, 9:38pm (UTC -5)
dipads... I'll second your nomination of Tricia O'Neil as Janeway. While she may have been among the contenders, those specifically named in Poe's "Star Trek Voyager: A Vision of the Future" are: "Blythe Danner, Linda Hamilton, Patsy Kensit, Kate Mulgrew, Susan Gibney, and--among the men--Nigel Havers of Chariots of Fire fame" (267). The possible confusion from O'Neil having played a different Trek role would not have been a strike against her; Susan "Leah Brahms" Gibney was Berman's favorite, even as a back-up for Genevieve Bujold. (The Paramount suits thought Gibney was too young. But that's another story.)
Jack
Sun, Sep 1, 2013, 12:08pm (UTC -5)
Jay said:

"It's the same thing that makes the mirror universe episodes ridiculous."

Well, "Crossover" was great...the only character we see "both" of is Kira, which makes a bit of sense since it's Bajor and one could accept that she would have the roles she played in each. We don't see mirror Julian because he'd have absolutely no reason to be near Bajor in that universe.

Beginning with "Through The Looking Glass, though, it all becomes ludicrous as you state, with Benjamin and Jennifer married in both universes, and everyone in the cast (plus Tuvok!) coincidentally gathered together in both, which would simply be absurd.
strejda
Sun, Oct 6, 2013, 4:41am (UTC -5)
@Sintek Really? I thought her perfomance in this episode was great.
Moonie
Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 8:26am (UTC -5)
What a fantastic episode! So far the only other ST episode that blew my mind in a similar way was The Menagerie. I'm still in awe.

I think this would have made a great movie. For me, there are not enough stars for this one.
Jay
Fri, Oct 25, 2013, 10:09pm (UTC -5)
& Jack

Actually, even Crossover is a bit absurd, since mirror O'Brien and mirror Sisko are there and would seemingly have no reason to be near Bajor in that universe. Mirror Odo is a little more plausible, but hard to imagine a Mora counterpart would have taken the time to raise him.
Steve
Sat, Nov 16, 2013, 2:49pm (UTC -5)
Well since "our" Sisko was later shown to have been brought into existence by the very specific machinations of "Sarah Prophet", the notion that this Sisko would exist in another universe stretches all credibility.
Nissa
Thu, Jan 9, 2014, 1:22pm (UTC -5)
Maybe I need to watch it again, but I couldn't quite keep up with this particular episode's technobabble. I love Guinan's mysticism, that she for some reason knows what is and what is not supposed to be. Granted, this doesn't really go with the whole "alternate dimensions" thing, as in alternate worlds technically speaking all choices would be fate.

Either way, this episode is fun to ponder over, and it was great to see Tasha Yar again.
SkepticalMI
Sat, Jan 25, 2014, 2:57pm (UTC -5)
I remember considering this episode as overrated. Not bad, of course, or even good. I thought it was a very good episode but not quite legendary, mainly because it seemed to try so hard for it. Like Jammer said, it seems to be written to be a classic, bringing back on old character and redesigning all the sets and having big explosions and showing an old Enterprise and just in general trying too hard to be epic. Well, after watching it again, I still think a lot of that. But I found the episode much better than I remembered.

There's still some annoying parts. To some extent, they tried too hard to make things different ("Military log, battle date 43xxx.x" and such), although I liked some of the subtler aspects to make the ship look more militaristic (appearing much more crowded). There's also the oddity of Worf getting called to the bridge because of the big importance of the magic anomaly of the week, but apparently Geordi's still hanging around 10-Forward in order to talk with Guinan afterwards. More importantly, the romance between Tasha and Castillo was a bit forced and seemed unnecessary. I guess it was an excuse to give Denise Crosby more screen time, but it distracted a bit from everything else. But the rest of the episode works.

To me, it seems to mirror Defector in some ways. Both episodes to some extent ask the question of what is worth dying for. In Defector, Picard was willing to die for the Federation, but was fortunately able to convince Tomalak that an escalation of the war was not worth such a sacrifice on his end. Here, he is willing to sacrifice his life, both in battle and in its very existence, in order to change the past and prevent a war from ever starting. In both cases, he gives a short uplifting message of bravado that makes one realize that they are a part of something great, something more important than one's own life. The bravery of Capt. Garret and her crew was similar. There's a real sense of honor and virtue in these episodes, which helps them along. And a real sense of things and events being important. "Let history never forget the name Enterprise."

While the method of the Enterprise-C changing history was probably necessary to enhance the theme of sacrifice, it also works in this case. I'm glad Data brought up the (likely) method of how the Ent-C saved the peace between Klingons and Federation. Presumably, the Klingons were having quite a bit of problems with the Romulans at this time (isn't this roughly the same time as the Khitomer attack?). Presumably they solved that issue, as the Romulans were insular for another 20 years. So the Klingons now had a choice of what to do with the Federation. But the Ent-C displayed a tremendous amount of personal honor, something the Klingons would undoubtedly have respected. It was the Federation's committment to justice and mercy even at the expense of their own lives that led to a lasting peace. Regardless of the differences between the Klingon moral ethos and the Federation's, the Klingons could recognize that honor. And honored it in return. So I disagree with Elliott that this episode suggests "random chance" led to the wonderful future. It was a committment to values. Both in the past and in the alternate present. That still seems pretty optimistic to me.

I do think that it was somewhat of a cheat to have the Federation on the verge of losing the war. To go back to the Hitler analogy, it would make more sense for us to go back in time to try to stop WW2 if the Nazis had won than the outcome we know. So it lessens the impact of Picard and Garret's decision a bit. On the other hand, it provides an in-universe reason for Picard and Riker to be so angry in the episode (great acting by both of them by the way). It may even be the reason behind their antagonism towards each other; Picard might know that the Federation is doomed, while Riker may think that there's still a chance and thus an extra ship would be useful.
Stelios Arianoutsos
Sun, Jan 26, 2014, 10:03pm (UTC -5)
Ethical bug: What if Federation was winning the war?
Rikko
Wed, Feb 19, 2014, 1:08pm (UTC -5)
Count me in the "What a great classic" side. I loved almost every moment of it. From the difference in tone with your usual Enterprise crew, lighting, and the dialogue of everyone.

Even Yar! She was pretty good here and I was glad to have her back (just for one episode). This is probably Denise Crosby's best performance so far (up to mid S4, I'm aware she comes back later on).


I was also bugged a bit by the mystical reasons Guinan gave in order to come back to the "right" timeline.

I'd have liked some more details, like "I can't say what's right or wrong, but I feel like there's a time when this war didn't happen, and the Federation is in an alliance with the Klingon empire". Well, maybe that's too specific, but still sounds more serious than just a feeling, no matter how strong.

Now, it seems to me that Picard decision to follow through with Guinan's idea wasn't all that out of character, in this context. Everyone was so pragmatic and moody in that universe than when somebody came in and say there's a better way, even when it applies more to emotion than reason, Picard must have thought: "Ok, it's worth a shot since we're losing the war, anyway."

Picard has a strong respect and trust in Guinan's words. And that's not out of character at all. Just remember the climax of "A Matter of Honor", when the Enterprise "surrenders" to the Klingon Ship. There was an unspoken pact of trust betweeen Captain and Number One for that to happen. This isn't any different.

It's a leap of faith, but based on mutual respect and that's very Trek, imo.
Trekker
Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 8:07pm (UTC -5)
This is traditional Star Trek's high point, a classic of hope, choices that matter, and the human spirit.

@Elliot, Nietzsche's flaw was his unrelenting need to prove self despite the overwhelming truth of the "whole", not the group or the selective distinction human's place on their own beliefs and taste, but existence itself in his pursuit is pushed aside for a view. I want to warn you that applying Nietzsche without understanding his flaw to accept existence will reduce your ability, not expand it.

In essence, TV shows are singular, but must also be valued with the sum of their parts.

Yesterday Enterprise represents the sum of Star Trek in the 1990's TNG. There is a certain parallelism that holds the story together, but something that is parallel does not need to be different in order to be enjoyed. A parallel is a self-reflection and introspection on things familiar; though different based on perspective.

If the Federation had been at War with the Klingons for 20 years, the war would have forced certain things to happen on a different path. However, based on Star Trek's own predestination paradoxes, there is an innate natural movement towards certain things and certain groups. The Enterprise exists as an anchoring point for this universe (In a fact, it is, since the show revolves around this ship and other ships like it. In essence, if one assumes the writers are God-apparent in the Star Trek universe, then the ship and crew will always come together to fit the meaning, which God, the Writers, would designate).
Tom
Tue, Apr 8, 2014, 11:51pm (UTC -5)
I didn't like this episode. First, I'm not a big fan of time travel stories. They tend to be full of paradoxes. At first, Picard is wary of interacting with the other Enterprise, stating that it may lead to a time paradox, but they do it anyway and there are of course no time altering consequences, as is usual in those types of episodes. Everything's back to normal at the end, ready for the next show.

Kurgan said: "Are we to believe that in an alternate timeline, with years of terrible bloodshed, the Enterprise would be built entirely the same and with mostly the same crew? "

Absolutely true. It reminded me of the DS9 alternate universe, which I hate.

I can't say that I liked the idea of having Guinan's intuition play such an important role here. I like it better when the characters solve their problems through logic.

And the episode never addressed the question that Picard 2.0 might not want to go back to being old Picard. Presumably, he's lived a completely different life and the Enterprise has never done anything featured in past episodes because the timeline is completely different and the Enterprise is a warship. So, wouldn't Picard 2.0, who has no idea who Picard 1.0 is, really want to go back to his original reality? He would be destroying himself and his memories. The more you think about these time travel episodes, the less sense they make. The alternate timeline is just treated as the gimmick of the week.

And there's Tasha Yar. She's not horrible here, just bad, but we are reminded that TNG is much better without her. Her wooden performance doomed the little love story. I noticed that we don't see her face full on after the kiss scene, probably because the director noticed that she was completely incapable of conveying emotion. I also didn't like that the episode felt like a forced attempt to give Tasha a meaningful death retroactively.
Elliott
Thu, May 8, 2014, 5:22pm (UTC -5)
@Trekker :

"...applying Nietzsche without understanding his flaw to accept existence will reduce your ability, not expand it."

I find this warning rather dubious considering I used Nietzsche specifically to demonstrate what Magee called the "rejecting of understanding." I applied Nietzsche in the negative which is perhaps still relevant, but I'm afraid I missed something in your post.
Charles
Wed, May 21, 2014, 5:16am (UTC -5)
This episode's ability to instigate a debate on Nietzschean aesthetics is a clear testament to its status as a classic.
GlenLP
Wed, Jul 16, 2014, 2:15pm (UTC -5)
I remember vividly watching this in 1990 when it first aired. At that time I was pretty down on STNG as were most of my friends and family (big fans of the original series and who had high hopes for the new series). This episode totally blew the roof off STNG up to that point and really showed how good the program could be. I really see it as the turning point for STNG. After that, the series became much more interesting to me.
Michael
Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 4:41pm (UTC -5)
First off I enjoyed this episode thoroughly and have seen every TNG DS9 Voyager and Enterprise episode including all movies.
The flaws:
Space is vast. No one seemed intrigued that it was the ENTERPRISE D and no other starship that "happen to come upon" the ENTERPRISE C at that point in time in the vastness of space? Uncanny no one pointed this out.

Secondly, why would a Federation battleship in a time of war be traveling alone and not part of a squadron or small fleet(4-10) vessels like a powerful navy would utilize. Apparently the Klingons use a squadron of vessels 3 vs 1 Federation vessel.

Third, the way the ENTERPRISE D utilized it's firepower. Firing photons only once? If anyone watched episode 51 The Survivors the Enterprise D unleashed quite a volley on the mysterious and powerful attacking vessel.
A couple volleys like this would disable or destroy 2 Klingon ships in the first 2 volleys leaving it as a 1on1.

Any thoughts feel free to comment I look forward to replies.
Mike
Fri, Jul 25, 2014, 2:10am (UTC -5)
Wow, finally someone, with my same name, that pointed out my biggest gripe of this show! You're tell me that the flagship of the Federation after episodes like the survivors, q who, the best of both worlds, couldn't mop up three 20 year old warbirds?

Don't get me started on Generations...
Michael
Sat, Jul 26, 2014, 1:39am (UTC -5)
They looked like warbirds but they were heavy battle cruisers.
Why the Enterprise did not use photon torpedoes after the first spread?
Perhaps the rift in space....they did not want to destabilize it?
They knew the Klingons were on the way. No other Federation vessel could assist? Yes it is a time of war but this was an unusual event to put it mildly!!
Comments welcome
Pluto-Nash
Sun, Aug 3, 2014, 12:36pm (UTC -5)
Actually I distinctly remember the Enterprise-D firing a 3-torpedo volley at least once during the battle. And since Starfleet had suffered such severe losses they likley didn't have enough ships to put Enterprise in a squadron. But all that is secondary to the big moral question- If Enterprise-C did go back in time they *might* save a lot of other people's lives, but they'd be all but guaranteeing certain death for themselves. A lot of people couldn't make that kind of gamble.
msw188
Fri, Aug 15, 2014, 6:53pm (UTC -5)
I have to admit, this one baffles me. I hate to be such a dissenter, but I'd have a hard time giving this one more than 2.5 stars. I do think there is a decent idea at the core of this episode. But both the writing and the execution are just not good.

You have Guinan driving the entire conflict of the plot. It's one thing for Picard to listen to her (even if he adamantly refuses at first, and is offered no reasons for changing his mind). But how is Picard listening to Guinan (or not) related to the EntC crew deciding/agreeing to return? There were lots of interesting ways this decision could have been reached, but what we actually got fell flat to me.

Beyond that decision, the rest of the episode is fluff. The battle is intense, but it can have no lasting consequences for its characters if it's won. It's also a bit contrived for the warbirds to show up at the last minute, but not before. Minor complaint, but still there. Much worse is the decision by someone (writer? producer?) to give Yar the love story that eats so much of the screentime. The poor girl isn't an ATROCIOUS actress, but she's definitely not good, and putting her into such an emotionally complex situation only highlights her lack of acting abilities. And to what purpose? Yar deciding to go back would have worked just as well with nothing but the Guinan conversation (which itself was somewhat sloppy writing). Why did this love story need to be there?

I'm sorry to rant so much on what seems to be such a beloved episode, but I honestly cannot for the life of me see why this one gets as much acclaim as it does.
Jack O
Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 1:43pm (UTC -5)
So the Enterprise D, "our" Enterpise shifts into another timline. But the people on board are still of the same age. Wesley Crusher wears a Starfleet uniform, so that means a underage kid is a full member of a warship? Who would have thought Starfleet would make military use of children....
Kid Marine
Wed, Oct 29, 2014, 11:15am (UTC -5)
Surely "Twilight" would be Enterprise's equivalent, not E2.
Dusty
Fri, Jan 2, 2015, 2:49am (UTC -5)
A splendid episode with an epic story. Of course it's full of holes--you can't really do a time travel or "temporal rift" story without them, because the whole idea doesn't make sense anyway. I had to go back in the beginning to try to wrap my head around what I was watching: a darker-looking bridge, a similar yet very different ship, Tasha Yar standing where Worf was a second ago. Once I realized the ship had just entered an alternate existence simply by approaching the rift, I was riveted.

I imagine the the impact of this episode was greater in its time, when it was a new high for TNG in many ways. It's clearly not perfect--the way Guinan convinces Picard to send the ship back on no evidence is weak. Why would Picard act solely on her gut feelings if he and others did not also sense something deeply wrong? But it's still a pleasure to watch. Memorable, emotional, and daring. I'd give it three and a half.
Timothy
Mon, Jan 12, 2015, 11:30pm (UTC -5)
Michael, you're really gonna nitpick the battle based on how many photons the Enterprise fired? That's the worst attribute of Trek Fandom right there, thinking that technobabble should drive the story rather than serve the story.

You can justify it easily enough, the limits of a TV budget and special effects technology at the time, but why bother? The ultimate point is that the Enterprise is fighting a hopeless battle for a greater cause. Three on One are long odds, she's doomed the minute they decide to stand rather than run, but they survive long enough to accomplish their mission and even take some of the bad guys with them.

If you think this episode would have been better with a drawn out CGI rendered wank fest like Nemesis (or, dare I say it, Sacrifice of Angels) I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely.
Troy
Thu, Apr 30, 2015, 10:17am (UTC -5)
I'm not a huge fan of this episode I'd say good not great. Time travel always loses a bit of luster and Denise Crosby was never a favorite of mine. It does have an epic quality to it. Patrick Stewart has some great acting in this, I also like the actress Enterprise-C captain. I do give credit for having an episode where the stars align; Tasha Yar's death and a temporally aware Guinan were well used. I know some people think this would make a good two-parter. Not really, a lot of it is padding to establish the Yar relationship anyway. I suppose they could have had Worf as one of the attacking Klingons as well as scenes in the time rift but I think a one parter is enough.
Nic
Mon, May 25, 2015, 2:37pm (UTC -5)
I love this episode as well, though there are a few plausibility issues.

Many commenters have mentioned Guinan's "mystic" perception that the timeline is not right. But the question that I had on my mind is why Picard never bothers to ask her a very simple question: "Why haven't you had this feeling before? Why now?" After all, from Picard's and Guinan's perspective, they've lived in that timeline their entire life. Guinan suddenly deciding that the timeline is incorrect when the Enterprise shows up would seem odd to me, if I were Picard.
Luke
Tue, Jun 2, 2015, 10:01pm (UTC -5)
All right, let's just get it out of the way, shall we? I have a major problem with this episode. In fact, I've always thought that this was one of the most over-rated episodes in the entire franchise. Is it good? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it great? No. Is it the best of the best? Hardly. From some reactions to it I've seen and read (not just here but from other fan sites as well), you would think people would be willing to give this episode an infinity out of ten score.

The reason I have such a problem with "Yesterday's Enterprise" is quite simple - what they did with Tasha Yar in it. Yar's meaningless death in "Skin of Evil" was easily the best moment in the god-awful first season and possibly one of the gutsiest decisions in all of Trek. Having a main character die a senseless death is something Trek writers seem adamantly opposed to doing. Spock gets a hero's death. Data gets a hero's death. Jadiza Dax gets a hero's death. Kirk gets a hero's death. Even nu-Kirk gets a, admittedly short, hero's death in "Star Trek into Darkness." You can say that you don't like the way in which those deaths were executed (no pun intended) but I can't see how anybody can say that they weren't intended to be chances for the characters to go out in blazes of glory.

With Yar, on the other hand, we were given something we were never given before and haven't been given since. Her death was simple; it was common and ordinary. She didn't get to go out with guns blazing and she didn't get the hero's send-off. In my mind, that makes her much more of a relatable character. Not everyone gets to have a cliched hero's demise. In fact, it's pretty rare. Death can take anybody at a moments notice without warning. You can be completely at unawares and then BOOM - you're dead. That's life and I wish Star Trek (which prides itself on examining the human condition) would show that more often. A huge part of the human condition is senseless, meaningless death.

Now, this isn't to say that Yar's death was handled perfectly in my opinion. "Skin of Evil" is by no means a perfect episode. Far from it! But the idea that one of the main characters could have a senseless death has always appealed to me.

Then along comes "Yesterday's Enterprise" and completely ruins that. We can't, simply can not, have one of our main characters have that meaningless death. So, let's do a time travel story where she's still alive in an alternate timeline and gets to charge into battle with guns blazing and get that noble, heroic death that apparently every single person deserves. Well, every person except Captain Garrett and alternate-Riker, who die simply because they were near exploding panels. But not Yar! Oh God, not Yar! She MUST have her noble self-sacrifice! This absolutely destroys the one humanizing aspect they gave the character (because, let's fact it, they really didn't do anything else of note with Yar while she was on the show).

I realize that most people don't share this opinion of mine and think that Yar's death in this episode is one of the things that elevates this into all-time classic territory. But, I'm sorry, this REALLY annoys me.

Now, like I said, this isn't a bad episode, far from it. The acting is top-notch across the board (yes, even from Denise Crosby). The contrast between the peaceful Enterprise and the more militaristic Enterprise of the altered timeline is very well done and gives the episode an unbelievably evocative and memorable atmosphere. The question of whether it's preferable for 100+ people we know to die in order to save 40 billion people we only hear about second-hand is fascinating - a wonderful moral dilemma for our heroes to face. And the world-building of how the Federation and the Klingon Empire came to be allies is nicely executed (but then, I'm a sucker for world-building).

If they had just let the Yar subplot out, then I probably would rate this episode close to a 10 out of 10. But, as it sits....

8/10
Del_Duio
Wed, Jun 3, 2015, 10:15am (UTC -5)
You could say that Jadzia's death was pretty pointless. I mean she just happened to be standing in the way of Dukat and the Orb, not really a hero's death IMO.

And because of this, Worf and etc. went on a dangerous raiding mission just a couple episodes later- because to him Jadzia lacked a death worthy of Sto'vol Kor.

Other than that, I agree with you.
Luke
Wed, Jun 3, 2015, 8:08pm (UTC -5)
She died while attempting to capture a war criminal. I'll agree that the execution of the idea was lacking (couldn't they have had her put up something of a fight) but it's still something of a hero's death. She didn't just get zapped to death out of nowhere.
Robert
Fri, Jun 5, 2015, 6:58am (UTC -5)
For what it's worth I think Jadzia was straight up murdered and that this episode doesn't take away from "Skin Of Evil", even though I totally agree with you :)

Having a main character die the kind of death that is usually fit for a "red shirt" shows that this job is DANGEROUS. That's a good thing.

That said... Tasha is still dead. She wasn't resurrected and made to die a new death. It didn't rewrite her death. And actually... if you think about fate... if Sela's story is true, this Tasha was straight up pointlessly murdered also :-(
Jovet
Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 11:51am (UTC -5)
I still remember when I first saw this episode. I remember being completely and utterly confused. Apparently I wasn't paying very close attention; I missed the start, the setup for it. And then the whole thing was lost on me. But I remembered it for being "very different" and not boring.

Years later I got to see it again, and I was able to absorb all the subtleties of the plot in context. This is one of my favorite episodes of the series, namely because it was ballsy. It was ambitious and risky, and generally well written. I agree with a few commentator, few moments of screen time were wasted. But I strongly disagree in calling this a "time travel" episode. There was no time travel, just a giant, universal paradigm shift.

I admit I'm easy to please. I tend to take the shows like STTNG that I watch at face value. As a viewer, the show is dictating the canon, and up to me to take it and interpret it for what it is. Over-thinking entertainment seems self-defeating to me. It's pretty hard for a plotline to "jump the shark" for me, or otherwise sever my suspension of disbelief and common sense. My least favorite episodes (e.g. Emergence) are few but demonstrate crossing that line. This episode never gets close. I even found the the "instant" return of Yar a delightful surprise (shock?), though I was never one to hate her character as others have. I think she was expertly weaved into the plot.

In hindsight, is it logical that things would be so similar to how they were in the "normal" timeline? Probably not. But with all the strange things I've seen in my life, it doesn't press its luck with me. The only thing, in hindsight, that bothers me is that (in the "normal" timeline) it sets up Star Fleet going without a ship named Enterprise for nearly 20 years. That strikes me as grossly unlikely.

The other-timeline Yar being captured by the Romulans is an intriguing concept in the context of the physics of universe and time. Unfortunately, I see it as in vain as Crosby's subsequent appearances didn't bold well with me. I guess that suggests to me she should have not traveled back wtih "C" to begin wtih.
petulant
Sun, Aug 9, 2015, 9:50pm (UTC -5)
I was blown away by this episode when i saw it over christmas when i was 16, it was episodes like this that turned me into a Star Trek fan for life, i think this episode works best when you watch it after the earlier episodes.
Roman
Sun, Aug 30, 2015, 8:13pm (UTC -5)
I think this episode would have made a great two-parter WITHOUT GUINAN.

I'm probably one of the few Trekkies who never liked Guinan. But this episode would have been decidedly better without her.

Picard is already speculating that a Federation starship being destroyed in the defense of a Klingon outpost could have prevented the war BEFORE the second confrontation with Guinan. And Data is making that observation as well in the briefing.

What Guinan effectively does it not so much advance the story by telling Picard something is wrong, rather she is ultimately giving him the moral cover he needs to make the decision to send the Enterprise-C back.

I would have loved a more pacing revelation of things. While they're getting the Enterprise-C ready for battle in the 24th Century -- which is futile, they already mention that if the Enterprise-D went back to the battle with 4 Romulan warbirds they'd have no chance against her weapons - so how is the Enterprise-C doing to make a dent into a modern Klingon warship?! -- they begin to discuss the possibility that escaping the battle caused an alternate history.

Picard and Captain Garret will then have to make a truly brave decision to go back - not because some supernatural bartender tells them it's the right thing to do, but because logic dictates it. And logic is a cold mistress.
FlyingSquirrel
Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 10:36am (UTC -5)
I think Guinan was probably necessary for Picard to think that the plan had any merit in the first place. I don't see Picard as someone who would normally endorse the notion of using time travel to undo an unfavorable event or series of events. Guinan made the case that sending the Enterprise-C back was actually *reversing* an accidental manipulation of the timeline rather than initiating the manipulation.
Del_Duio
Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 11:06am (UTC -5)
@ Roman / "so how is the Enterprise-C doing to make a dent into a modern Klingon warship?!"

That's not the point though, it's to show the Klingons that a Federation ship would be willing to fight to the death in a lost cause (something most Klingons would respect of course). If you can respect your enemies, that might open the door to future negotiations for peace which is what likely happened.
Robert
Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 12:46pm (UTC -5)
@Del_Duio - Agreed. I always thought it was a butterfly effect story, not a direct cause->effect thing. Like, one Klingon ship found the wreckage of a Federation starship, pulverized with Romulan disruptor fire, found the "black box", figured out what happened and was impressed enough to collect the bodies and deliver them back to a Starfleet ship.

The Captain of the Starfleet ship had a brother on the Enterprise C and the Klingon Captain and he share a moment of mutual respect. Years later they are both stodgy Admirals and meet to fight over something or other, remember each other and take a different path. One stone plopped in a lake makes a billion ripples and all that.
Max
Thu, Sep 3, 2015, 9:26am (UTC -5)
@Roman - I think you underestimate the trust Picard has for Guinan. Guinan's "hunches" are always spot-on, which I've always assumed, for lack of a better explanation, is because of the species she comes from.

I honestly don't think Picard would have gone through with the Enterprise-C going back in time if it hadn't been for Guinan saying it was absolutely necessary. This nagged at him, and changed his perception enough that instead of sending the Enterprise-C into battle (which it was clear they WERE going to do, whether or not the ship would have been "hopeless" in such a battle), he actually took time to think about his decision at many levels, and then finally decided that if there was a chance that the Enterprise-C could "fix" the timeline, it should be sent back.

As someone on the thread said before, the temporal prime directive would apply here, even if the concept itself didn't really exist at this point in Trek. Because Picard had an idea that he was FIXING the timeline rather than deliberately changing it, he was willing to do it. And the idea of fixing the timeline came directly from Guinan. Logic, in this instance, could have gone either way. It was Guinan's certainty that made Picard decide to do what he did.
Diamond Dave
Sat, Sep 5, 2015, 6:50am (UTC -5)
Playing on those classic Trek themes of hope and nobility and self-sacrifice this is utter genius, establishing a pitch perfect alternate reality in which the standard contrivances of week to week TNG can be credibly tossed aside and we can watch our heroes fight and die for a greater purpose.

While many have criticised Yar's return for giving the character a "TV death", for me it is worth it for the wonderfully queasy first scene with Guinan. There is a lot of quality acting going on here too - the tense, snappy, pressurised Picard standing apart from his command staff a particular highlight. Garrett and Castillo are also strong supporting characters (indeed, if there is one shame in the episode it is that Garrett is killed off too early).

We're also given a wonderful battle scene conclusion, finally seeing the VFX fully step up to the plate, culminating in Picard leaping to the phaser controls as the bridge burns around him. The sets and lighting wonderfully portray the military Enterprise, not least of which for the single Captain's chair front and centre - this is not a command staff democracy, and there is no place for a ship's counselor...

And, lest we forget in what follows, we have probably the funniest cold opening yet as Worf discovers prune juice ("a warrior's drink!") and laments the fragility of the crew's female contingent.

With Q Who, this for me was the episode that re-defined what TNG was capable of - an unreserved 4 stars.

Jonathan
Tue, Oct 6, 2015, 8:23am (UTC -5)
The storytelling, acting, pacing, and especially, the music here are absolutely incredible. This is the apex of science fiction television.

For those quibbling about time travel or Guinan's so-called "mysticism", well, respectfully, it's science fiction! Of course there are some logical flaws. Mysticism and the supernatural are inherent to the genre. This is a story with heart. One of the best ever for the series.

"Geordi, tell me about...Tasha Yar."
Ben Franklin
Sun, Mar 6, 2016, 7:22pm (UTC -5)
I'm not sure why people have a hard time with Guinan's ability to consciously transcend space-time and to have a glimpse of a parallel universe. The writers have consciously chosen to keep Guinan a mystery... a special character if you will... instead of giving her a proper backstory and character arc of her own. She is not a primary character, after all. The Q are able to do things that no one in the Trek universe can comprehend, yet we all love the Q episodes (most of them) and Q in general. The fact that Q and Guinan seem to have a very adversarial stance towards each other coupled with the fact that Q considers her to be "a very dangerous creature" tells me that Guinan simply has abilities that we, and the Enterprise crew, cannot readily comprehend.

I love this episode. We get a little more Tasha, we get some play with dimensions and time. We get some moral ambiguity. And we get some great performances. The one thing that always irked me is the fact that Guinan was on the alternate-universe Enterprise *at all*. What was a bartender doing on a warship? They didn't even have access to the replicators (eating rations etc), what use would they have for a bartender? I was in the Navy and you better believe if there was a civilian on our boat, it wasn't a bartender... more likely to be CIA or something like that. Guinan should not have been on board the alternate-universe Enterprise at all. The story could've moved forward with Picard and Data's usual deference to logic and logical thought. As some posters have mentioned previously, Picard had already alluded to the possibility that the presence of Enterprise-C could have messed up their time line. Data could've assuaged any moral dilemma that Picard was dealing with.

Again, I'd give this episode a solid 4 stars but I am definitely irked by the very presence of Guinan on a Federation warship during wartime when things are so bad that they have shut down replicators and are living on rations.
Luke Matrix
Sun, May 29, 2016, 8:44pm (UTC -5)
In regards to the issue of things being similar in the alternate timeline with ship and crew, I feel that's just a necessary thing for both budget and story usage. I don't want to see a bunch of characters I've never seen before and have no emotional connection with. I love seeing my favourite characters in a different world and seeing what might have been. And they're not going to build new sets or a new model of the Enterprise-D. They barely had time to get the C made and had to take some liberties with the studio model versus the conceptual art. Even simply redressing the bridge cost a bunch of extra money. At some point there just has to be a suspension of disbelief in order to tell the story they want to tell.
Latex Zebra
Tue, Jul 12, 2016, 6:54am (UTC -5)
Stunning episode.
Ivanov
Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 12:28am (UTC -5)
Wow I just realized that Federation ideals must be stronger than I originally.
For 20 years this Federation fought the Klingon empire, and Starfleet never started conscripting citizens from across the Federation to try and fill its depleting ranks. I mean with 150 different species and thousands of colonies the Federation must outnumber the Klingons by the hundreds of billions and could simply devote their economy to making expandable Miranda craft to overwhelm the Klingons. But we see that Starfleet is still most likely an all volunteer force. besides the fact that training is clearly rushed (cough Wesley cough) they haven't totally devoted themselves to war.

Rather than change their way of life and become more militaristic they chose to mostly remain the same(save censorship) I don't buy into the Starfleet isn't a military thing that Picard occasionally mentions. They have ships on par with military warships and Protect federation colonies from outside threats. at the least their a paramilitary force slightly better than space cops.

This is an episode I can watch over and over again its well executed and makes a great use of Tasha Yar a character I only remembered as that woman who got killed by the Tar monster and gives her a proper send off. 4 Stars.
Klovis Mann
Wed, Oct 5, 2016, 12:53pm (UTC -5)
I'm with the dissenters on this one. Many of my reasons align with those already stated so I won't repeat at length but to name a few....galactic fate hinging on Guinan's intuition? Sorry, no way. All of the "love" stories on ST proceed at warp speed, not credible (again) Riker vs Picard = missed opportunity big time !

Many thoughtful posts here as always. Love the site overall. Many thanks Jammer and everyone.

Suffice to say; I thought this episode was bullshit.......have a nice day.......
JustJim
Sun, Nov 27, 2016, 9:29am (UTC -5)
I actually quite like this episode. Guinan makes no sense in it, however. Guinan was always a superfluous character, and there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to have a "bartender" on a warship - much less to give a bartender apparently unrestricted access to the bridge.
Without Guinan, Picard would have the ability to make a decision based on simple facts at hand - namely, one more ship will do no good here, but it has potential to make a difference in the past. Captain Garrett's crew could even have insisted that they return to the battle they accidentally left.
I would have preferred that the Enterprise D be at Narendra III investigating the actual anomaly that C came from - perhaps believing it to be a weapon? Or, perhaps investigating the anomaly in what is now deep space - but it where Narendra III was 22 years ago? Again, not for purely scientific reasons, but believing the powerful energy signatures indicated weapons testing?
I understand all the budget constraints that prevented the Enterprise D from really being a warcraft unlike the D we know. I also understand why the same basic crew was there. Except Wesley, who in no way should have been involved.
Still, one has to accept this in a live action show. In an animated show, far more dramatic differences could have been portrayed, but would they have gotten to a third season to do this episode?
Anyway, my main point is that Guinan is completely unnecessary, and that even sending Tasha Yar back into the rift could have been explained another way. For example, when Garrett died, Tasha could have insisted on going to act as tactical officer. Or - and this would have been really interesting - she could have defied orders, hijacked a transporter, and beamed aboard the C, leaving no choice but to let her go. It would have been something special then, don't you think?
I do like the way this alternate timeline resulted in a child who grew up and encountered the man who her mother served under. It's nice when Star Trek remembers its own history, as this never seemed to happen on TOS.
Yanks
Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 9:58am (UTC -5)
"Let's make sure that history never forgets the name ... Enterprise."

While this is an historic line in trek, I still to this day do not believe Patrick delivered it very well.
Del_Duio
Tue, Nov 29, 2016, 11:06am (UTC -5)
@ JustJim:

I think Guinan sort of doubles as ship's councelor too.
And a bartender on a warship makes about as much sense as a Bolean barber I guess :D
phaedon
Sat, Jan 21, 2017, 2:43pm (UTC -5)
This episode is nothing short of an episodic masterpiece.

A couple of things to note. The dynamic of the ship's bartender overriding the captain based purely on intuition sets the tone for the entire episode. Secondly, Guinan's intuition is revealed early on in the episode; this makes Guinan one of the best implementations of the "magical support character" trope, as the episode's protagonists have an entire act to wrestle with their decision. The dutiful decisions the crews make and that this temporal rift triggers is the real focus on the episode.

1. Thoughtful captain of a starship willing to bet the entire Federation on a friendship, against every instinct in his body
2. Ship's crew willing to return a fight they will definitely lose
3. Sacrificing the few for the many
4. Loved ones, dying together, in battle
5. Dying an honorable death versus an empty death
6. Engaging in tactical maneuvers that essentially sacrifice the D for the C, on faith

Obviously a lot of this has Shakespearean roots. I have grown to admire the screenwriting of TNG and am not a fan of "one glaring problem" criticisms. For an episodic, the amount that is on the line, and the way out, is stunning. Guinan's "this isn't right" is literally the only piece of reality that the viewer of an episodic series can hold on to.

Once you buy into this device, you realize this episode is about human self-sacrifice and faith as a means of salvation when at every turn there is an easier way out. And ultimately it gets you from one episode to the next. Incredibly self-aware stuff. Best of TNG.
Peter G.
Sun, Jan 22, 2017, 10:24am (UTC -5)
Excellent review, phaedon.
tara
Thu, Feb 9, 2017, 10:29am (UTC -5)
I just rewatched this one for the first time in over a decade. There's a lot to love. Though, interestingly, what I loved this time around is a bit different from the highlights I remember.

The lighting of the Enterprise -D and the grimness of Picard and the tension between him and Riker were outstanding. (This marks the second straight episode that I am impressed by Frakes's acting, after despising it season one. Maybe his beard has magic powers.)

What I loved originally - the return of Yar, the moral struggle of Picard to make the right decision, and the doomed romance encapsulated in Castillo's line, "If you get back to earth and see a man of about fifty taking a long hard look across a crowded bar..." don't move me as much this time around. Not that they're bad. They just aren't the gut-punches I remember.

On both viewings, the final battle scene shines, as does Guinan.

And now, my complaint about Picard's moral struggle. This is presented to us as the main conflict of the piece: Should Picard order the Enterprise-C back in time on a suicide mission that may/may not prevent a war and save forty billion lives? Patrick Steward is amazing as always. "Not good enough! Not good enough, damn it!" will always be classic Trek.

But.

Picard has zero authority to order the Ent-C anywwhere. He is not Garrett's commanding officer and he is not the boss of the timeline. His moral quandary is simply whether to advise/pressure Garrett to go back. The decision - the real decision, the life-and-death-and-morality decision, rests entirely with her. And she has far more at stake than Picard. She is personally responsible for the one hundred twenty-five souls left alive on her ship - and these are people she knows and people who up until a few hours before were on a peaceful mission, simply answering a Klingon distress call. They were not at war and (while they knew the risks of Starfleet service) not expecting to be ordered to sacrifice their lives in battle. Not insignificantly, Garret's own life is at stake as well, whereas Picard's is not. In reality, it is she - not Picard - who carries the full burden of command and the grave responsibility to make the best choice.

(It's worth noting that if the Ent-C goes back, Picard loses nothing and may gain a lot. Either the Ent-C will fail to prevent the war, in which case nothing changes, or the Ent-C will succeed and Picard will likely have a much better life - as he will be spared twenty years of being a soldier at war, suffering fear and loss of his friends, and the imminent defeat by the Klingon Empire that we are told is six months off. So again: Garrett's decision is much harder than Picard's decision..)

Of course Garrett isn't the person we are invested in, so the writers cast the decision as Picard's. But this is a cheat.

In the scene in which Picard tells Garrett he wants her to command her ship to go back, Garrett says something odd and, in terms of human nature, fairly hard to believe: she announces that many of her crew have already asked to go back. This is an odd choice on the part of the writers, since it cuts the ground out from under the burden of command felt by the two captains. (Hey, no big deal - those hundred twenty-five people are all cool with the suicide mission!) So why is it said? It seems to me that this was inserted so that Garrett's decision would not have to be a struggle. If we think her crew is aghast at the idea of going to their deaths, then we will also have to be shown the more *authentic* tale of Captain Garrett's struggle, after being shown Captain Picard's struggle. Having two different captains sequentially burdened with the timeline decision would have diluted the drama and cut the emotional weight of the episode in half.

So Picard was given the weighty emotional struggle. And Garrett was given the heroic gesture of sacrifice. But it doesn't ring true, either to the command structure or to human behavior. Any captain - not just Picard - is going to struggle like hell with the decision to sacrifice her crew on a mission of unknown outcome. But Garrett doesn't struggle at all; doesn't even insist on talking to Guinan. It takes all of two minutes for Picard to convince her.

Given that she is seeing how terrible a future she's landed in, it's very believable that she does go back. (If she doesn't, she and her crew are marooned not just twenty two years out of their time, but in the middle of a war their side is about to lose.) However, she has to weigh that returning is certain death, and may be utterly meaningless, and that staying in the future will at least give them a chance to survive and maybe see loved ones, etc. And I keep coming back to the fact that for the Ent-C, this is all a complete shock... unlike the Ent-D, they were on a peaceful mission just a few hours earlier with no freaking clue they were all about to die in battle.

So I'm troubled by the show's unexamined conceit that Picard, not Garrett, is the person wrestling with the moral dilemma, while Garrett - who is Picard's counterpart - is willing to make the same monumental decision in a fingersnap. I understand that this conceit is necessary, in order to streamline the story and keep the dramatic focus on Picard, but it's not right.

Along with Garrett, one other person in the episode makes a heroic sacrifice of her life. I am speaking, of course, of Yar. I remember loving her arc fifteen or twenty years ago when I first saw the episode. This time it fell a bit flat, but I think that's not the fault of the script but more due to Crosby's acting limitations. I was surprised by how soft-spoken she was, which I suppose is not much different from the Yar of season one. (I would have liked to see her, like Picard, be more brusque and military as befits a woman whose people have been at war since she was about eight years old, and who has spent her entire career being more or less a soldier.) She also didn't sell me on the anguish and struggle of her decision - though partly that's because she was never around long enough to become a character with friends and loves and a full life on Enterprise-D that I didn't want her to lose. None of this is her fault of course, or the writers', so I am trying not to let it detract from my enjoyment of the episode. I definitely appreciate that the show brought her back for a guest-star turn and a heroic ending. I just can't help imagining what a Patrick Stewart-level actor could have done with her role....

In sum: For reasons of drama, the focus of the episode is Picard.... when, actually, it's the other captain who makes the momentous decision. I love a lot about the story, but I can't quite forgive the license it gives itself.

Three stars for the episode itself, and an extra half as bonus for bringing back Yar.

Chrome
Thu, Feb 9, 2017, 10:46am (UTC -5)
@tara

"Picard has zero authority to order the Ent-C anywwhere."

I don't know if the temporal prime directive states this specifically, but it's heavily implied throughout the series that the captain of the current timeline holds rank over time jumping crew-members. If it were otherwise, the Captain Picard in "Time Squared" could've started barking orders and lower officers as soon as he gained consciousness. The same goes for the captain of the Bozeman in "Cause and Effect". The bottom line is, you can't expect to jump ahead a century or so in time and expect to keep the exact rank and privileges you had a century ago.
Chrome
Thu, Feb 9, 2017, 10:51am (UTC -5)
Also, we should acknowledge that Picard never gave any direct order to Captain Garrett. In his conversation with Guinan, he said he'd be "asking" the Enterprise-C to go back. In the end, Picard persuaded Garrett to go back because she agreed it was the right thing to do. It wasn't a matter of chain of command or pulling rank.
Peter G.
Thu, Feb 9, 2017, 11:28am (UTC -5)
I agree with Chrome about the command structure. But also, Picard may well be the fleet commander in the war timeline, in which case he would actually outrank her anyhow. Garrett doesn't have information to make an educated decision, and so on the balance that also makes Picard the correct person to make the call. This is furthered by Guinan being the one to tilt the scales, and her relationship is with Picard.
tara
Thu, Feb 9, 2017, 11:31am (UTC -5)
@Chrome

If Picard has authority because it's his "real" timeline, that completely defuses my objections. Was it explicitly stated in this episode though? Because I didn't know it. And that gave me real problems.

I agree that Picard never *ordered* Garrett to take the ship back. He merely leaned on her to do it herself. That was kind of my point. It seemed to me that her crew was still her crew and the choice to return was hers, not Picard's. The only order I saw given came from her: "Saddle up everyone, we're going back to face our deaths." Which struck me as a decision she made far too easily.

If it were Picard's right to command her to return, I would have liked to see that command given. Because that would have been the real moment of reckoning. She says to him, "We don't want to die. And you have no idea if this will even change anything. You're really going to order us to throw away our lives based on your bartender's funny feeling?" He's ashen-faced but committed to his course. He tells her straight out: "Yes. I'm ordering you." That moment was needed. I didn't see it.

Through my whole rewatch, I just kept thinking that if it were our beloved crew on the Enterprise-D that were hurled forward in time - if it were they who found themselves in a Klingon-Federation war alongside Future Enterprise-E, whose captain wanted Picard to take his crew back and accept a suicide mission that would end the lives of every character we're invested in - it would NOT be presented as a heavy decision on the shoulders of the Enterprise-E Captain, followed by Picard saying two minutes later, "Okay, we'll all agree to certain death because of your bartender's hunch." It would be shown to us as Picard's struggle, once again.
Chrome
Thu, Feb 9, 2017, 11:50am (UTC -5)
@tara

Like I said, it's implied authority because of the logical reasons I suggested above. You see it talked about in "Second Chances", where the Riker clone isn't automatically promoted to commander like his counterpart was, but rather needs to undergo some serious debriefing to be caught up and capable as an officer. Let's take a real life example, though. If a Civil War general leaped into the middle of WWII, do you think they'd give deference to that general's opinions on how to take on Germany without some serious retraining from WWII-era generals?

It should also be pointed out the episode painted a scenario where Garrett and her crew would die either way. In the "present", the Klingons were a threatening and real force that can make short work of the Enterprise-C even if it did stick around.

Finally, you answered your own question about why an episode where Picard jumped wouldn't casually send him to his death. We're already invested in Picard, he's not a guest actor who the audience could let go of without a making a big deal out of it.

I agree this episode could've spent more time on Garrett's decision, but with Denise Crosby guest starring, the episode instead ended up spending most of its time on that decision and what kind of sacrifices Tasha was willing to make.
tara
Thu, Feb 9, 2017, 12:29pm (UTC -5)
@ chrome

Yes, I don't protest your explanation of the command structure. Now that you and Peter G have explained it, I can see it's the only sensible way to run things in a universe where various commanders pop back and forth through time.

What I am protesting now is that the episode didn't make it clear to me. My lack of understanding of the command structure kinda just ruined my rewatch. Maybe I'm the only dolt in the audience who didn't understand that Picard was Garrett's superior in the here-and-now... but speaking on behalf of myself and any potential fellow dolts, it would have been nice to have it spelled out.

Different point, not so much an objection as a wish: Given that the decision was in fact Picard's to make, than I do say that the ep would have been weightier and grimmer and more fantastic if Garrett and her crew had been played as far more resistant to the suicide mission rather than being on board for it. Then Picard would have been forced to give her a direct order to take her people back to die, and she would have blanched but painfully and nobly submitted, and I would have seen the full anguish of Picard's command decision, and the full measure of the gamble he was making on Guinan's powers.

(Final note: Now that I understand it really *was* Picard's decision, the focus on him and not Garrett makes perfect sense.)
tara
Thu, Feb 9, 2017, 12:30pm (UTC -5)
And, lastly: thanks to you both for explaining it to me :)
Linda
Mon, May 1, 2017, 3:15am (UTC -5)
It always bothers me when Guinan, or anyone else, says Tasha Yar’s death was “empty”, meaningless (in Skin of Evil). Yar died trying to help a crewmate. How in the world is that empty or meaningless? And since the Federation was losing in the alternate universe, it seems she was destined to die whether she transferred to Enterprise-C or not.

But I agree the episode is way better than most of S1 or 2.

"Let's make sure that history never forgets the name ... Enterprise." I’m pretty sure that Captain Kirk already made sure that history would never forget the name Enterprise. Though yes, that would be all for naught if the Federation lost the war in the alternate universe.
DLPB
Mon, May 1, 2017, 10:30am (UTC -5)
It was the mud monster of the week.
Chrome
Mon, May 1, 2017, 1:28pm (UTC -5)
@Linda and DLPB

Yes, I'd say it was meaningless in the sense that it was completely preventable and her death didn't help the captive Troi whatsoever. If you compare that to potentially preventing a Klingon-Federation war (which arguably needed Yar after Captain Garrett was killed), then Yar going on the Enterprise C seems much more meaningful.

Guinan was also not present when the Enterprise encountered Armus, so she may have only heard about what a waste it was for Tasha to do die and that the crew regrets being unable to stop an untimely death.
Jason R.
Mon, May 1, 2017, 2:16pm (UTC -5)
I take issue with the idea that Tasha died a "meaningless" death.

Life (and death) are given meaning by the character of the person and the ideals they pursue, (and how they are remembered) not by the random chance and happenstance of how they died.

Incidentally, Yar's death did absolutely help her crew. But for her death, Armis would undoubtedly have killed someone else in her place. She quite literally died to save the life of one of her crewmates.
Jason R.
Mon, May 1, 2017, 2:20pm (UTC -5)
As an aside, if Tasha had lived to 90 and died of a stroke, would that too have been "meaningless"? Does everyone who does not die in battle or deliberately sacrifice themselves for some noble cause (ie. 99.9999% of the population) die a "meaningless" death? As I see it being murdered by an evil puddle of goo is no less arbitrary and meaningless than any other kind of death from heart disease to earthquake to transporter accident. I'd call the contrary view rather nihilistic to be honest.
Peter G.
Mon, May 1, 2017, 2:26pm (UTC -5)
I wonder whether saying that Tasha's death was "meaningless" isn't meant as a nod to how Crosby left the show, more so than the specifics of how Yar died on the planet. Rather than writing the character out, or creating a storyline to explain Yar leaving the ship, they just inserted "ok, she's dead!" in some random episode. And to be fair, this wasn't an isolated incident, because there was literally no mention at all of Crusher leaving the ship prior to being introduced to Dr. Pulaski. All in all I would say that the writers were still doing things in a very slapdash manner, and the "meaningless" nature of Tasha's death feels to me like a meta reference to that. It's not that her death literally meant nothing, as Jason points out, but rather that it was worth nothing on a narrative level because the writers treated it like little more than taking out the trash.
Robert
Mon, May 1, 2017, 2:48pm (UTC -5)
"As an aside, if Tasha had lived to 90 and died of a stroke, would that too have been "meaningless"? "

If I live to 90 and then die of a stroke I'd consider that fairly devoid of meaning, sure. It will just sting less because my life will have been more finished. Most deaths are meaningless. Most deaths of officers who are in the line of duty are not though. Her death did not assist them in defeating Armus. I always thought that was the point.
Peter G.
Mon, May 1, 2017, 2:57pm (UTC -5)
"Most deaths are meaningless."

:(
William B
Mon, May 1, 2017, 4:46pm (UTC -5)
"And to be fair, this wasn't an isolated incident, because there was literally no mention at all of Crusher leaving the ship prior to being introduced to Dr. Pulaski."

I dunno. Not to defend The Child overly, it devoted an entire B plot to Wesley trying to decide whether to join Beverly at Starfleet Medical. It was maybe in media res (Crusher already off the ship) but the show spent time establishing where she was and how that affects the regular most closely associated with her in the first episode where she's absent.

Re the general topic, Armus specifically underlined that he killed her for no reason, and that's why he did it. It's not hard to see why the crew didn't exactly see the poetry in a death which wasn't even an accident but an act taken out of malevolent nihilism.
Robert
Tue, May 2, 2017, 9:05am (UTC -5)
@Peter G. - Just because a death is meaningless isn't a bad thing. I don't really care if my death has meaning as long as my life did and I don't suffer. There's nothing particularly meaningful about nodding out in a rocker while watching your favorite TV show at 95 and never waking up, but if you lived a good meaningful life, who cares that the last 10 minutes or so weren't particularly purposeful? I didn't mean it as a depressing or bad thing.
Linda
Tue, May 2, 2017, 1:52pm (UTC -5)
Agreed. The better measurement is how well one has lived, not how well they died.

In that final battle sequence, for a moment it seemed like the Enterprise-D was going to get blown to bits before Enterprise-C could go back in time. And I wondered, what if Enterprise-D would have failed because their chief tactical officer was not with them? That would have been ironic.

Enterprise-C was getting badly beaten in their own time. They jump to a future where their side has way better weapons—and still is destined to get badly beaten. I think I can believe that some crew members might want to go back to their own time and participate in a battle where in the slim case if they survive, there’s a chance to reunite with loved ones. And maybe you don’t have to be Guinan to have the feeling that you’re in a place and time that you don’t belong.
Peter G.
Tue, May 2, 2017, 3:16pm (UTC -5)
My sad face wasn't a commentary on whether a person's death ought to be their defining moment as compared with their life, but was just a reaction to the bleak-sounding comment that most deaths are meaningless. The implication there seems to be that that only a spectacular or game-changing death has 'meaning' (whatever that implies), and that ordinary or accidental deaths are without meaning, even if the person's life can be said to be 'more meaningful' than their death was. This is more or less what Jason said above. If you want to qualify death as merely the end of material contributions then I suspect you'd have to conclude that all deaths are meaningless, since meaning could only be given by things done while alive. But then it's basically a distinction without content, akin to saying that death is the end of life. But if some deaths have meaning and some don't, by what criterion is that decided? How spectacular the death was? That would sound like a rather Klingon estimation to me. And so I agree with Linda and Jason above on this one.

I also agree that even in terms of pure utility Tasha's death wasn't useless. In fact, I would argue that since signing up to Starfleet carries inherent risk, anyone dying in the line of duty for any reasons should probably be categorized as a noble death, if we're going to be making categorizations at all.

Really, though, I think the usage of "meaningless" in the case of Tasha might be more related to the general mentality that "we can't make sense of *why* Tasha had to die" that her comrades might have felt, which in itself is interesting because I do suspect that humans have an innate need to assign purposeful teleology to things. "Why did that happen?" is a question only to be asked if one believes that all things have, or ought to have, a purpose. A materialist view of the universe doesn't permit for 'why', only for 'how', and so I do think that even the question of whether Tasha's death was meaningless in itself carries the premise that deaths do have meaning, provided we can dimly try to understand what they are. "It had no meaning" might be better translated, in this context, to "we can't glean its meaning, and this is upsetting to us."
Chrome
Tue, May 2, 2017, 3:54pm (UTC -5)
Funny enough, this discussion of meaningless death is based partially on Linda misremembering the actual line:

"TASHA: Where am I supposed to be?
GUINAN: Dead.
TASHA: Do you know how?
GUINAN: No...But I know that it was an empty death. A death without purpose."

Which I think reflects on William B's comment that Armus killed out of sheer malevolence and Tasha's death neither served a purpose of furthering the mission or appeasing Armus. Surely, if the crew talked to Guinan about the incident, they'd mention the senseless cruelty of Armus.

Finally, the word "meaningless" does come into play later in this episode when Riker is describing the imminent deaths of 125 Enterprise C crewmembers. A statement which Data is quick to correct is indeed not meaningless.
Linda
Tue, May 2, 2017, 9:33pm (UTC -5)
Well, Chrome, I don’t know that I misremembered as much as I summarized, what Guinan said, and what I thought I’d seen in the comments, whether here or on the Skin of Evil comment section. And though it’s been a good discussion, I have no desire to go over all of the comments to see if my overall impressions of them were incorrect.

But it does seem to me that once asked, Guinan’s words were designed to manipulate, to provoke a specific response from Yar. And it works. Shortly thereafter Yar goes to Picard and requests the transfer, citing Guinan’s words. In truth, I don’t think the writers needed Guinan to give Yar that extra push. They’d written the love story and also provided a need for a tactical officer on Enterprise-C. Actually I could go further: I don’t know that the episode needs Guinan at all. What if: Enterprise-D discovers Enterprise-C and, through minimal techno-babble, realizes time-wise neither ship is where it’s supposed to be and ultimately settles on the strategy of sending Enterprise-C back thru the rift? Done right, I think that could work, too.

Enterprise-C traveled 22 years into the future. And here we are more than 25 years after the episode first aired still talking about it. Pretty amazing.
Chrome
Tue, May 2, 2017, 10:33pm (UTC -5)
@Linda

Well, I didn't mean offense I just want to point out that Guinan's words more accurately describe a fate of dying to Armus than you summarized.

And yes, Guinan was trying to provoke Yar because she knew Yar would be left with an empty death in the prime timeline. Normally, Starfleet officers do not mess with the timeline by regulation (even for romance) but the Enterprise crew has faith in Guinan's species ability to understand time. Thus, Yar did need Guinan's push.
Linda
Tue, May 2, 2017, 11:39pm (UTC -5)
Chrome, I know most people will disagree with me, and I don’t hold that against them, but this is what I feel: Yar had shown her character by dying in a failed attempt to aid a crewmember, and by other missions where she honorably served. My personal opinion: Guinan does Yar a disservice by using that event to manipulate Yar. Yar doesn’t need to be manipulated into doing the right thing. Lay the cards on the table, Yar would have willingly gone to Enterprise-C.

But only, of course, if the writers wrote it that way.
Chrome
Wed, May 3, 2017, 8:32am (UTC -5)
@Linda

Guinan's talk with Yar wasn't just about giving Yar a reason to go back in time. Remember that Picard was unwilling to upgrade the Enterprise C for fear of what it would do to the timeline? He was also against Tasha going back originally until he realized it was Guinan's idea. The writers must've seen a need to address that.

It was also nice to give Guinan and Yar a scene together since they never got to meet in season 1.
Linda
Wed, May 3, 2017, 9:49am (UTC -5)
Well, Chrome, I’d have to go back and watch the episode again to be sure. But my recollection is that Picard was already convinced that Guinan was correct by then.

I just did a little background research on the writing of this episode and according to that source, the writers regretted how they had written Yar out of the series and wanted to give her a flashier exit. And I suspect that’s my real problem.
Chrome
Wed, May 3, 2017, 10:08am (UTC -5)
@Linda

Picard was convinced sending the Enterprise C back was correct, but not that Tasha would go on board. Those are two separate things.

Denise Crosby voluntary left the show because she didn't like her role in season one. However, she requested to be put back on this show and even to be on DS9 and Voyager, so take of that what you will. "Yesterday's Enterprise" is apparently Crosby's favorite episode.
Linda
Wed, May 3, 2017, 10:55am (UTC -5)
Hmm. Chrome, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. And I’m okay with that.

You and I agreed that Guinan manipulated Tar. Your POV: you’re okay with that, for the greater good. I could argue that the ends don’t justify the means. But that sounds like too heavy a philosophical discussion for this forum. Looking forward to picking nits with you on some other episode.
Lupe
Sun, May 21, 2017, 7:53pm (UTC -5)
I should mention thatI I (re)watched this episode as part of an unbroken binge which lasted into season four, without pausing to review each episode while it was fresh in my mind. Therefore I won't go into too much detail. Except this one, because for some reason it really stuck in my head:

They carry rocks in the ceiling!

Really, in the scene where Garrett's bridge is blown up, the ceiling gives way and out tumbles an avalanche of various sized rocks. I watched in slow-mo just to check, and I can't imagine what else they could reasonably be construed to be. It always seemed kinda ridiculous to me that every time they get in a firefight things blow up all over the bridge in showers of sparks and flames and smoke, as if the whole place was running on old radio vacuum tubes, but now a bunch of obviously heavy, irregularly sized but basically rock shaped rocks tumble out of the ceiling and cause grievous injury to the Captain. Did they position the Captain's chair directly beneath the ship's collection of small boulders? It's a spaceship - everything should be as light as possible without sacrificing strength, and by the 24th Century I should think that would be very light indeed, so don't tell me these things are inexplicably broken up bits of iron girders or concrete or something.

Anyway, there's my main contribution to the analysis of this episode. I don't think it really needs much else from me by now, but I'll give it a fling:

I guess I'm in the good, probably very good, but not an instant classic group. I'd be willing to buy that it was an instant classic in 1989 in terms of what had preceded it on TNG, but in the bigger picture of what came out over the following 15 or 16 years of uninterrupted TV Trek, I can think of enough episodes which are markedly better that if I give this my highest accolade, I have no room left at the top for them (1989 was, BTW, around when I started regularly watching the series. I'd been aware of it before then, but it didn't start to click with me til around this point).

My biggest problem while watching this episode is really probably my own fault more than the episode's. I guess I'm insufficiently versed in Trek history, but I wasn't clear that there was an ENT-C captained by someone called Garrett, which had existed between Kirk's and Picard's Enterprise, and it therefore seemed to me as if there weren't one but TWO alternate timelines going on. I couldn't understand which universe this other ship had come from. This distracted me quite a bit, and if it's something I should have known about, or I'm missing something obvious, the fault, as I said, is mine.

Apart from that I enjoyed the episode a lot, though it did seem at times to be a bit too contrived or vague. I think the arguments about Guinan's hunch dictating Picard's decision are very valid. I'd thought it a little atypical of Picard while I was watching it, but one tends to get caught up by the creepy atmospherics of this quite effective performance, and to not overanalyse it at the time. As has been observed, this is probably as much Twilight Zone or Fantasy as SF, but ST has never really been the sort of Hard SF which John W. Campbell would have approved of. It does wander into other genres fairly regularly (that's if you even consider SF a genre to begin with). All the same it's inevitable and probably not unfair that it is going to attract the sort of viewership who expect it to cross its T's and dot its I's at least where commonsense is concerned.

All in all, not much to complain about here, and a good but not great episode. They should do something about that ceiling insulation, though.
NCC-1701-Z
Mon, May 22, 2017, 5:13pm (UTC -5)
Lupe: They apparently forgot about circuit breakers and surge protectors in the future too.

I seem to remember hearing about a Trek parody where the ship throws one of their exploding consoles at the enemy to take it out. I forgot what it was.
Rahul
Tue, Jun 20, 2017, 4:25pm (UTC -5)
Prior to watching YE for the first time just a few minutes ago, I had astronomically high expectations. I was well aware that many consider it one of the best TNG episodes, that it's been called a classic etc. etc.
Having just finished watching "Yesterday's Enterprise", I'm a tad disappointed mostly because my expectations were so high. Time travel stories always have their holes and this one is no exception although it maybe has fewer of them.
I have to agree with Elliott and Kurgan who posted a couple of the initial comments in this thread.
YE does pull out all the stops with a different bridge, different uniforms etc. to reflect the changed timeline. There is also an nice battle scene and some good lines between Picard/Guinan & Picard/Yar & Guinan/Yar. They even threw in a bit of romance (which I didn't give a shit for) with Yar/Castillo.
I found the episode difficult to get a reading on at first -- how did the transformation of the Enterprise-D come about? Then it made sense with Yar back that the Enterprise-C coming into the future changed history etc. Bit of an arbitrary circumstance.
As for the moral dilemma, I didn't see it as so much of a big deal as is made out by folks calling YE a classic. OK, so Guinan has her feelings (I can accept that) but I also feel Picard should tell the Enterprise-C to go through the rift since that is where they belong. Guinan should do better in articulating her feelings re. Enterprise-C as she did re. Yar's meaningless death (which then makes Yar request a transfer to Enterprise-C). Data makes the most valid argument that dying in battle will be seen as honorable by the Klingons and is what turns out to make the timeline the way we all know it to be.
In any case, this is a riveting episode, a well-thought out story with some great action scenes and a bit of moral/ethical stuff. I'd rate it a strong 3.5 stars - I'm not enamored with it and, for me, it is not one of the top 5 TNG episodes (certainly not up there with BoBW, for example).
jai
Fri, Jun 30, 2017, 1:57am (UTC -5)
Fyi

Tasha isn't dead according to star trek online's latest ep. Sela's father lied to her. She was sent to a prison camp that ended up abandoned along with T'Nae and Castillo
Marianne
Tue, Jul 4, 2017, 2:03am (UTC -5)
I love this episode, really I do. But every time I watch it I can't get over the fact that Wesley had no business on the ship in the new timeline. Since the Enterprise was now a ship of war with no children on board, Crasher would never be allowed to take him with her in the first place.
Eric Stillwell
Tue, Aug 8, 2017, 7:00pm (UTC -5)
I would like to thank Jamahl Epsicokhan for the lovely review -- not sure exactly when it was written, but I'm assuming maybe a decade ago!?!

As the co-writer of the story for Yesterday's Enterprise, I'd like to thank all of you who enjoyed the episode, whether you consider it a classic or otherwise.

For those of you who enjoy the pastime of nitpicking, let me just say: It's a television show! If science fiction writing was based entirely on the proposition that everything must be logical and scientifically accurate, then Star Trek would not exist -- because traveling faster than the speed of light is not possible.

And trust me, my writing partner and I struggled through several story drafts trying to find a way to logically, factually establish a basis for Picard's decision to send the Enterprise-C back through the rift, but given that the timeline has been altered and no evidence to the contrary exists, it was Michael Piller's idea to give Guinan the extraordinary alien gift of perception through time and space. Ultimately, I think it worked nicely and established the unique relationship that exists between Picard and Guinean, especially in future episodes and even Star Trek Generations.

Peace to all! Thanks for the passion.
Peter G.
Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 10:02am (UTC -5)
@ Eric Stillwell,

Don't mind the nitpickers! Many of us consider this story to be one of the best ever told on TV, so thank you for your work on it.
Chrome
Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 10:17am (UTC -5)
@Eric Stillwell

If that's you, I echo Peter's sentiments, and as this is some of the best Star Trek, resting in what's often regarded as the best season of TNG. I think the only reason we get so many nitpicks is that it's hard to sharply criticize what is genuinely a great episode.
Yanks
Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 11:40am (UTC -5)
@Eric Stillwell

You know trekkies.... this is what we do!! :-)

Your position in trekdom is secure no matter what is chatted about here or on any other trek site.

Fantastic Star Trek! Thank you for giving it to us.
Erik Campano
Wed, Aug 16, 2017, 2:20pm (UTC -5)
@Eric Stillwell

Thank you for checking in on this site, and for a fantastic script!
RandomThoughts
Sun, Aug 20, 2017, 12:01am (UTC -5)
Hello Everyone!

@Eric Stillwell

Neat! I am glad you stopped by and it'd be cool if you posted some thoughts on other episodes as well, though not to nitpick of course. :)

Oh, and I always have held this episode in the highest regard.

Regards... RT
borusa
Wed, Oct 4, 2017, 3:22pm (UTC -5)
Another truly transcendent episode.
The use of lighting was brilliant in subtly conveying the changed timeline.
The moral dilemma and its personal dimension affecting the doomed Tasha is compelling and everyone loves a bit of heroic sacrifice.
Guinan is used very well indeed and Whoopi Goldberg 's debate with Patrick Stewart may be some of their finest work on the show.
There are a few matters that didn't spoil it but jarred :
There is a retcon error that isn't this episode's fault but subsequently turns up in 1991 at the end of ST:VI: The Undiscovered Country when we discover that peace broke out 60 years before Narendra.
We also have the amazing completely variable size and power of the Klingon Bird of Prey class ship again.
I mean come on-those ships could have been swatted like bothersome flies.
phaedon
Sun, Oct 8, 2017, 5:37pm (UTC -5)
That is so cool one of the writers stopped by.

Now that I'm watching Season 3 again (good Lord when will it end), the moment that really stood out for me was Yar's plea to stay with the Enterprise C. (Also, Stewart's performance in the episode is nothing short of unbelievable.)

Anyway, back to Yar. Every time I see that one scene where she sits down with Picard, I am immediately reminded of "Million Dollar Baby." (Imagine, this episode of TNG aired 15 years before.) A couple of similar elements at play. Notably, the warrior seeking a meaningful death.

But let's talk about Guinan a second. She takes over the role of the "outsider," very similar to the role that Clint Eastwood plays in many of his movies, in that she (and she alone) ultimately knows or does the Right Thing, however her actions or thoughts cannot be fully explained, or moreover she operates in a way that is considered morally unjustifiable/reprehensible by society/normal standards. The cop that has to go outside the law to capture the serial murderer. The coach that takes his boxer off life support and helps her die an honorable death. The bartender psychic (still serving drinks on a warship, eh?) against all reason insisting this is the wrong timeline and sending her colleague to a certain death. This is, in a sense, a form of assisted suicide. Picard is very clear that she is going to die. I love that scene so much. "Lieutenant!... Permission granted."

"People die every day, mopping floors, washing dishes. You know what their last thought was? I never got my shot."

Submit a comment





Notify me about new comments on this page
Hide my e-mail on my post

◄ Season Index

▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2017 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.