TNG Characters in the JJ-Verse

[Set Harth]

UFO wrote:

---

If you have been following the thread you will know I was actually responding to Temis the Friendly Ghost and she did say that.

The point is, this was not something claimed by the film or the writers.

UFO wrote:

---

"Possible" only in the sense that technically absolutely anything "might" happen (from our limited point of view), but is never-the-less so unlikely that we would normally attribute it to a deity etc, if it actually "did" happen.

No, we would normally attribute it to something called "coincidence". No deity required.

UFO wrote:

---

Indeed your use of italics seems to imply agreement thus rather undermining your: "nothing of the sort".

You're apparently reading too much into it.

UFO wrote:

---

Actually by saying something like the universe is trying to "repair itself" the writers are effectively endorsing Pantheism.

The quote I posted by Orci contains no endorsement of Pantheism. It speaks of probabilities. It's cast as science rather than religion.

[UFO]

Set Harth wrote:

---

The point is, this was not something claimed by the film or the writers.

A "point" that doesn't need making because nothing I said indicated otherwise. But if you are so concerned, why did you not point that out to Temis the Friendly Ghost yourself?

I will say that your "point" is however misleading because Orci is obviously trying belatedly and unsuccessfully to make it appear the multiverse somehow makes it almost inevitable that the events of the movie would come about. To quote you quoting him: "Thus, the idea that Kirk and Spock and Bones come together is merely an indication that the probability assigned to such an event is very high in the multiverse." (We are not of course concerned with the multiverse, only with how likely it is in the JJverse).
　
So from a pedantic point of view he is not saying 100% probability, just very likely. By all means make whatever technical point you can out of that distinction. To me Orci still looks to be mistaken.
　

No, we would normally attribute it to something called "coincidence". No deity required.

Only up to a certain point. Once things get too ridiculous many resort to superstitious explanations. The film, as I explained, appears to be no exception, whatever the writers may have intended.
　

　
The quote I posted by Orci contains no endorsement of Pantheism. It speaks of probabilities. It's cast as science rather than religion.

　
But that's not how it came across in the film and I believe his quote fails as science anyway. The phrase I referred to comes from the movie (if I remember it correctly) and implies a fantasy explanation of some sort, especially in the absence of anything else.

[Set Harth]

UFO wrote:

---

A "point" that doesn't need making because nothing I said indicated otherwise.

Well, that's a relief.

UFO wrote:

---

I will say that your "point" is however misleading because Orci is obviously trying belatedly and unsuccessfully to make it appear the multiverse somehow makes it almost inevitable that the events of the movie would come about.

That didn't last long.

UFO wrote:

---

So from a pedantic point of view he is not saying 100% probability, just very likely. By all means make whatever technical point you can out of that distinction.

It's possible you may be misinterpreting what is meant by "very high"; after all, he doesn't give a number.

UFO wrote:

---

Once things get too ridiculous many resort to superstitious explanations.

Good for them.

UFO wrote:

---

The film, as I explained, appears to be no exception, whatever the writers may have intended.

As I explained, if the film depicts something that is possible, there is no need for superstitious explanation. You may see the film as "ridiculous", but you don't speak for everyone. Also, dodging writer intent isn't really going to do anything for your argument.

UFO wrote:

---

But that's not how it came across in the film

Hardly. The film said nothing about "Pantheism". You seem to be projecting an interpretation onto it. What I saw in the film was Spock Prime trying to make something happen because he thought it was a good idea. No magic, fantasy, or superstition required.

UFO wrote:

---

The phrase I referred to comes from the movie

No, it doesn't.

[UFO]

That didn't last long.

Actually it's still in effect because I haven't said Orci stated the probability to be 100%.

It's possible you may be misinterpreting what is meant by "very high"; after all, he doesn't give a number.

and

As I explained, if the film depicts something that is possible, there is no need for superstitious explanation. You may see the film as "ridiculous", but you don't speak for everyone.

The funny thing (apart from your redefinition of "very high" to mean "low") is that your quote of Oric is his attempt to make parts of the film look less "ridiculous" (I am not saying the whole thing is implausible of course). So, while there may be a few fans who are willing to overlook almost anything, it appears I speak for the writers! After all, there wouldn't be any point in him saying anything if he thought his alternative "scientific" explanation had so low a probability that he had to resort to fate or mysticism etc. It seems he does, but he appears to believe otherwise.

Hardly. The film said nothing about "Pantheism". You seem to be projecting an interpretation onto it. What I saw in the film was Spock Prime trying to make something happen because he thought it was a good idea. No magic, fantasy, or superstition required.

We are not talking about Spock Prime's actions. We are talking about the likelihood of all the original crew getting together almost a decade before they did in the prime timeline (and in particular event like the chances of Spock Prime meeting Krik and Scotty on DV) despite significant disruption.

No, it doesn't.

Thanks for quoting me out of context. I said "(if I remember it correctly)". It seems I didn't. And that's weird because I must have read it somewhere.

There is a thread here that describes a deleted scene that contains that idea and Memory Alpha states it is still in the novelisation but neither explains why I thought it was in the movie, so perhaps somewhere there is a suggestion that it was?

Anyway, in the above thread there is a quote from the screen play where Spock Prime refers to the crew of the Enterprise:

Perhaps the time stream's way of attempting to mend itself. In both our histories, the same crew found its way onto the same ship in a time of ultimate crisis -- therein lies our advantage.

Now this isn't canon but it does indicate the writer's intentions at that time (which you seem to value). Ie. It looks for all the world like some form of mysticism, fate, pantheism or whatever. Spock Prime also talks of destiny though that could be part of his smokescreen so he didn't have to go with Kirk and thus prevent Kirk from getting into the captain's chair.

And of course the only way to avoid the relentless feeling that things are only happening because the writers need it to, is to suppose some form of destiny. Unfortunately that just makes the film look like a fantasy. So we know how things look. The only question is did the writers change their minds and try to later paint things in scientific terms?

[King Daniel]

Having seen the Terminator films and TV series, where those damn machines keep eventually being built even when the company behind them changes (Cyberdyne in T1 and 2, Cyber Systems in T3), when the origin of Skynet changes (a big mainframe, then a internet software program from the US Air Force, then a chess computer merging with something-or-other in the TV series) and the date of the nuclear apocalypse keeps changing but remains a constant event.... yeah, I can see the Enterprise crew uniting in a ton of different timelines.

[Ryan8bit]

Terminator is a pretty bad example to use since after the second one, it too makes very little sense. T3, T4, and SCC all tried to milk the brand even though it was essentially done after T2 and really didn't need continuation. Every producer who came along had to really twist things to keep it going, and the result was always less than stellar.

Aside from that, I liked the line in T3 where Arnold says that "Judgment Day is inevitable." Maybe terminators that look like Arnold, or John sending back Kyle shouldn't be inevitable, but the message was that the fate of humanity would always lead to that. It was inevitable that their hubris leads them to building a super computer that was capable of wiping them out. If it wasn't Dyson, then it would just be somebody else. If it wasn't in 1997, it would just get pushed back to later. It's almost like inventing electricity. It was likely inevitable as long as people didn't wipe themselves out first.

But interpersonal events? Yeah, it's silly when those stay the same. It's ridiculous to say that someone like Kyle Reese, who originally states that he was born after the war can be exactly the same person born before the war. That is when things become far too stretched.

Having TNG characters would certainly stretch it that much. The original cast showing up on the Enterprise isn't as bad as that, but the way everything lined up still strained probability.

[UFO]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Having seen the Terminator films and TV series, where those damn machines keep eventually being built even when the company behind them changes (Cyberdyne in T1 and 2, Cyber Systems in T3), when the origin of Skynet changes (a big mainframe, then a internet software program from the US Air Force, then a chess computer merging with something-or-other in the TV series) and the date of the nuclear apocalypse keeps changing but remains a constant event.... yeah, I can see the Enterprise crew uniting in a ton of different timelines.

I don't deny they could come together early "in a ton of different timelines". The question is: Could they come together in the actual timeline that branched off from the prime universe, given the disruption cased by Nero? Remember, this would be the same likelihood that would occur in a traditional time travel story if the prime timeline itself had be effected in the same way. So we are not talking about an infinite number of timelines to choose from.

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

...
Having TNG characters would certainly stretch it that much. The original cast showing up on the Enterprise isn't as bad as that, but the way everything lined up still strained probability.

Do you think TNG characters would stretch credibility purely because they are from TNG, or because you don't think their existence can be explained well enough in the earlier time period? Ignoring Spock Prime of course.

[Ryan8bit]

Probably both, but I was more referring to their time period (24th century in the JJverse). There are some that have been listed that could be around, such as Guinan, but most of the regular cast were born decades afterward, and it's hard to believe that with something as major as the destruction of Vulcan, that it wouldn't affect the lives of the next gen shows parents, grandparents, etc.

[King Daniel]

UFO wrote:

---

I don't deny they could come together early "in a ton of different timelines". The question is: Could they come together in the actual timeline that branched off from the prime universe, given the disruption cased by Nero? Remember, this would be the same likelihood that would occur in a traditional time travel story if the prime timeline itself had be effected in the same way. So we are not talking about an infinite number of timelines to choose from.

In real life, if such things as time travel were possible? Probably not. But in Star Trek's world, yes. We've already had one similar example in Next Gen's "Yesterday's Enterprise", where an event altered 22 years in the past led to a present where everyone but Worf was where they "should" be on the USS Enterprise, despite the enourmous difference of a war with the Klingons (that the Federation was losing) raging on for most of that time. That the Enterprise would have been in the same place as it's prime-verse counterpart to witness the Enterprise-C arriving from the rift is incredibly iffy. The exact place it needed to be to put things right.

[Sindatur]

Yea, we've all seen stories where "Stepping on a butterfly" can change everything drastically, but, it's just as possible stepping on it will have no effect.

We'd already met the Vulcans when Vulcan was blown up, so, the fact Vulcan has been blown up doesn't necessarily need to change anything we're seeing with regards to people who exist and where. Now, of course, any Vulcans may have a drastically changed present, some may never be born, etc. But, someone from Earth, such as Captain Picard, would have to have his parents meeting be affected by Vulcan still being around, such as a mission they went on together in relation to the Vulcans, where they met or a Vulcan who was killed in the destruction of Vulcan saved one of their lives in the Prime Time line, etc.

So, the further removed you are from your history revolving around something that was changed the less likely that change is going to affect you.

Certainly the desctruction of Vulcan may change your timeline, but, it's just as likely not to have.

[Ryan8bit]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

We've already had one similar example in Next Gen's "Yesterday's Enterprise", where an event altered 22 years in the past led to a present where everyone but Worf was where they "should" be on the USS Enterprise, despite the enourmous difference of a war with the Klingons (that the Federation was losing) raging on for most of that time.

Actually, not only was Worf gone, but so was Troi, and Yar was there. That showed at least a modicum of thought about who should and shouldn't be there. With the new movie, the goal seemed to be just to shoehorn everybody in there, without any of this thought. Had maybe Chekov not been there, and maybe someone like Number One been there, then it would have been a little bit easier to swallow.

That the Enterprise would have been in the same place as it's prime-verse counterpart to witness the Enterprise-C arriving from the rift is incredibly iffy. The exact place it needed to be to put things right.

A decent point, but how do you know it was the exact same place?

At any rate, the intro and outro of the episode are a little bit clunky in more ways than just this, but they needed a way to frame the episode around Guinan, and showing the Enterprise in our regular timeline was the dramatic way to do that. Not every character was necessary in this movie, nor did their gathering need to be so blatantly coincidental.

[Ryan8bit]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Now, of course, any Vulcans may have a drastically changed present, some may never be born, etc. But, someone from Earth, such as Captain Picard, would have to have his parents meeting be affected by Vulcan still being around, such as a mission they went on together in relation to the Vulcans, where they met or a Vulcan who was killed in the destruction of Vulcan saved one of their lives in the Prime Time line, etc.

It doesn't need to be so direct. Upon everybody simply hearing about Vulcan being destroyed, they would have stopped what they were doing, changed their plans, and changed their thoughts about many things. That alone might not change Picard's grandpa meeting up with his grandma, but the chances of Picard's grandpa having the exact same sperm reach the exact same egg at just the right time is astronomically improbable. Add in his other grandparents, his parents, and the odds of all of them uniting, and the probability is about as close to zero as you could get.

Now, Star Trek has had its share of improbability when it comes to this. First Contact is definitely a good example. The Borg go back and change things, and the Enterprise goes back to minimize their damage. But the changes still happened. When the Enterprise returns to the future, it's highly unlikely that it would be the same future they remember. Usually that just happens to not impede the narrative or mindfuck the audience. But the next gen crews are all unnecessary. They don't need to be there this time around for any reason. It's not helping any narrative in any way.

[Sindatur]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

It doesn't need to be so direct. Upon everybody simply hearing about Vulcan being destroyed, they would have stopped what they were doing, changed their plans, and changed their thoughts about many things. That alone might not change Picard's grandpa meeting up with his grandma, but the chances of Picard's grandpa having the exact same sperm reach the exact same egg at just the right time is astronomically improbable. Add in his other grandparents, his parents, and the odds of all of them uniting, and the probability is about as close to zero as you could get.

Now, Star Trek has had its share of improbability when it comes to this. First Contact is definitely a good example. The Borg go back and change things, and the Enterprise goes back to minimize their damage. But the changes still happened. When the Enterprise returns to the future, it's highly unlikely that it would be the same future they remember. Usually that just happens to not impede the narrative or mindfuck the audience. But the next gen crews are all unnecessary. They don't need to be there this time around for any reason. It's not helping any narrative in any way.

First, let me say, I'm not in favor of shoehorning in TNG folks, so, I have no dog in that fight.

Why would simple Earth Plantation/Vineyard owners (Picards Parents) stop everything they were doing and change their plans because Vulcan was destroyed? It would have nothing to do with them, they weren't Starfleet, they have a Plantation/Vineyard on Earth. Did everyone in California stop everything they were doing and change all their plans and their whole life because of Hurricaine of Katrina devastating New Orleans? No. Sure some ran straight off to New Orleans to help out, but, most just went on about their business. The destruction of Vulcan would be nothing more than a passing thought, if that, for a Plantation/Vineyard owner

[King Daniel]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

Actually, not only was Worf gone, but so was Troi, and Yar was there. That showed at least a modicum of thought about who should and shouldn't be there. With the new movie, the goal seemed to be just to shoehorn everybody in there, without any of this thought. Had maybe Chekov not been there, and maybe someone like Number One been there, then it would have been a little bit easier to swallow.

Although IRL the known TOS crew united for the movie in 2258, in-universe the crews weren't "correct" for the time. The prime-universe Enterprise crew of 2254 included Number One, Doctor Boyce, Jose Tyler and Yeoman Colt. That's very different from the crew we saw in STXI, which began with Chief Engineer Olsen and Dr. Puri before the TOS regulars took over, and was still missing Yeoman Rand by the end of the movie. The full TOS crew (including Chekov) wasn't united until 2266.

[Ryan8bit]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Why would simple Earth Plantation/Vineyard owners (Picards Parents) stop everything they were doing and change their plans because Vulcan was destroyed? It would have nothing to do with them, they weren't Starfleet, they have a Plantation/Vineyard on Earth. Did everyone in California stop everything they were doing and change all their plans and their whole life because of Hurricaine of Katrina devastating New Orleans? No. Sure some ran straight off to New Orleans to help out, but, most just went on about their business. The destruction of Vulcan would be nothing more than a passing thought, if that, for a Plantation/Vineyard owner

That sounds rather dispassionate. I wouldn't liken it to a natural disaster. It was a terrorist attack that involved the destruction of an entire Federation world. I think the closest modern American equivalent would be 9/11, but in 9/11 there was only a few thousand deaths rather than billions; a terrorist attack vs. genocide.

Now imagine the ways in which 9/11 affected your life. I could certainly say that my specific kids wouldn't have been born if not for 9/11, and I didn't have any direct ties to New York either. I didn't just shrug it off and say, "Well, back to my own little world." I didn't run out and help people either, but it changed the way I thought, and there were many experiences to learn from it, and many things to consider. It also affected government policies, diplomatic relations, the economy, culture, etc. There was a lot of fallout. Even if you kept to yourself most of the time, a lot of the people surrounding you may not have.

Since 9/11 was just a drop in the bucket compared to Vulcan being destroyed, imagine if the entire UK was destroyed. Do you not think that would have any impact on people across the globe? Do you think they'd still go about their business in the exact same way? It's highly doubtful.

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Although IRL the known TOS crew united for the movie in 2258, in-universe the crews weren't "correct" for the time. The prime-universe Enterprise crew of 2254 included Number One, Doctor Boyce, Jose Tyler and Yeoman Colt. That's very different from the crew we saw in STXI, which began with Chief Engineer Olsen and Dr. Puri before the TOS regulars took over, and was still missing Yeoman Rand by the end of the movie. The full TOS crew (including Chekov) wasn't united until 2266.

That reinforces the idea that this crew is some crew of fate. Despite other things being so different, what is it that makes it so that they all end up in the exact same places and positions? It's fate.