Jammer's Review

Star Trek: The Next Generation

"Yesterday's Enterprise"

****

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

36 comments on this review

Lee Roberts - Tue, Nov 27, 2007 - 7:38am (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 rĂ´le 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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
@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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
@Sintek Really? I thought her perfomance in this episode was great.
Moonie - Fri, Oct 18, 2013 - 8:26am (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
& 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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
Ethical bug: What if Federation was winning the war?
Rikko - Wed, Feb 19, 2014 - 1:08pm (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
@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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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 (USA Central)
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

Submit a comment

Above, type the last name of the captain on Star Trek: TNG
Notify me about new comments on this page
Hide my e-mail on my post

Season Index

Copyright © 1994-2014, Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of any review or article on this site is prohibited. Star Trek (in all its myriad forms), Battlestar Galactica, and Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc., NBC Universal, and Tribune Entertainment, respectively. This site is in no way affiliated with or authorized by any of those companies. | Copyright & Disclaimer