This question contains spoilers about the end of the movie Stargate Continuum. I'm not putting this in spoiler code because this movie is over three years old.

At the end of Stargate Continum Cameron Mitchell travels back in time to the year 1929

and lives in that time period for ten years until 1939 when he stops Ba'al as he's exiting the Stargate by shooting him in the head.

There, he meets his grandfather and the two become friends. According to Stargate Wiki, Cameron was born in 1970, if we assume Stargate takes place in the present, and because we know that Stargate Continuum was released in 2008, we can assume that the movie takes place in 2008 as well.

In 2008, Cameron Mitchell would be 38 years old.

When he goes back in time to 1929, he's still 38 years old.

  • In 1939, when he shot Ba'al, he would be 48 years old.

  • 31 years later, in 1970, he is born.

  • In 1970, the Cameron Mitchell that went back in time would be 79 years old.

The movie shows that he did continue to exist in the primary timeline by showing a picture of Cameron's grandfather with his 'best friend' (time traveller Cameron) on the inside of younger Cameron's locker.

I haven't seen many episodes of Stargate SG-1 beyond season three so I don't know much about Cameron Mitchell's backstory.

My question is this:

Does the show suggest any evidence that young Cameron's upbringing was affected by an alternate version of himself living during the time of his grandfather? (Were his parents rich? Perhaps granted money from a friend of the family that was close to his grandpa? Was his education paid for by a mysterious benefactor?)

Does it show any evidence of his being alive in the past having any effect on the continuum at all? It seems to me that he could have used his being alive in the past to warn himself of potential dangers in letters or to place convenient items that would help in critical situations his younger self or team would find themselves in as the years wore on.

  • 1
    I know it was. I'm wondering if they left any foreshadowing for perhaps an episode with a similar plot before they were cancelled or if the writers created the plot just for the movie. – Kalamane Sep 20 '11 at 2:33
  • 2
    This ain't Babylon 5. Don't expect higher meaning. :) B5 I could buy it! JMS is crazy about awesome detailed plotting. I am not so sure about Stargate. – geoffc Sep 20 '11 at 2:38
  • 1
    @Dima I always thought it was a shame he didn't do the nasty in the past-ey. – user1027 Sep 20 '11 at 3:26
  • 1
    Why not just assume that Cam's picture of his grandfather always had his grandfather and himself? – dkuntz2 Sep 20 '11 at 17:22
  • 1
    Because if he had always been in the past then people wouldn't have started vanishing when Ba'al went back in time. – Kalamane Sep 20 '11 at 19:30

There was no sign of it, because the SG1 series we saw, was the original timeline, where Ba'al didn't interfere with history and Mitchell didn't go back in time.

| improve this answer | |

This video answers your questions. It is canon, it appeared with the iTunes version of the Continuum-movie. According to this, Mithell died in the battle of Britain in 1940 as a Spitfire-pilot, so he had no interference with the history further that point.

| improve this answer | |

No, there was no obvious foreshadowing of this. I believe that at the time the series ended, the end of Continuum hadn't been written.

| improve this answer | |

Actually there's a reference although is not clearly explained so it might as well be a coincidence.

In the 10th season episode 200 they're talking about missions during one of the discussions for the movie plot (remember this episode airs when the show is cancelled and two DVD movies are announced). At a point there's a reference to one mission whose details Mitchel is not aware of, and Sam, Daniel and Teal'c explain that they cannot tell Mitchel about that specific file... They make a joke out of it but in the end, with a serious tone, Sam says: "Seriously Mitchell we can tell you about it"

| improve this answer | |
  • That's not a reference to it. He was on the ship with his grandfather, and they were discussing his father in that episode. It was a throwaway, mess with the new guy, joke. – Jeff Aug 15 '12 at 20:12
  • 3
    @Jeff Actually it was referring to the 1969 episode, suggesting that maybe O'Neill happens to be Mitchell's father – Zommuter Aug 12 '13 at 10:06

Technically is not the original timeline. In the episode 1969 we see a time loop. General Hammond gives himself from a past a message so that the current timeline will be preserved. In the original timeline this did not happen simply because cause cannot come after effect. I know the question was a bit different but is not the original timeline

| improve this answer | |
  • I think you're mistaken. In a time loop, causation can follow effect. Because it's a loop, see. – Valorum Feb 3 '18 at 23:20
  • -1 for a wrong - as well as pointlessly pedantic - answer. Grab a dictionary. – J Doe Feb 4 '18 at 11:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.