RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,397
Posts: 5,358,609
Members: 24,627
Currently online: 514
Newest member: space2050

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar Online Debut
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Warp 5.0: Trek Toward Sci-Fi’s Golden Anniversary
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Takei To Host Pittsburgh Symphony PNC Pops’ Sci-Fi Spectacular
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Kurtzman In Mummy Talks
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 19 2010, 05:09 PM   #211
I-Am-Zim
Captain
 
Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

lawman wrote: View Post
OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
I haven't read it for a while, but if I'm reading this right, Star Trek (2009) would be, in your eyes, not that different in concept to the Mirror Universe.
Or any of the realities seen in "Parallels." Bingo. It was a parallel reality all along, even before it got its past changed.

(I figure this is pretty much exactly what everyone who cares would have assumed anyway had the PTB just done a clean reboot.)
That's what I've been saying since about April of 2009! Clickety
I-Am-Zim is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 06:52 PM   #212
Tyberius
Commander
 
Tyberius's Avatar
 
Location: Twenty million die by fire if I am weak.
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

lawman wrote: View Post
If MWI had "always" been the rule for Trek time-travel, then there would be no "prime" timeline. Instead, our characters would have unwittingly shifted among literally dozens of alternate universes. And there are quite a few episodes, including widely recognized classics like "City," that would quite simply be reduced to incoherence by such an assumption. Clear enough?
Wow, you do actually get it don't you? I was beginning to think that you were obtuse, but you are just stubborn.

There is no prime timeline. There really isn't time either. There are different universes for each decision that a sentient being makes.

However, the other time travel episodes would not be reduced to incoherence. Our characters would still get the outcome that they desired - a reality that pleased them.

lawman wrote: View Post
The writers of this movie have (some) control over the presentation of this movie. They have no business making a "change in presentation" of any past Trek, nor any need to do so.
Ha! Writer's have been doing that since day one. Human psychics and time-warp.
lawman wrote: View Post

I've never argued that the MWI approach to this story is impossible. I've just argued that it's unnecessary and undesirable, and moreover that even if we accept it for the sake of argument, it doesn't actually explain Spock's motivations as questioned in this thread.
It absolutely does. If Spock discovered that the many worlds interpretation was fact, there would be absolutely no reason to time travel, as you split the universe anyway.

Spock settled in this universe because this universe was as good as it was going to get for the old man. Here he could do something that could help.
Tyberius is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 07:48 PM   #213
lawman
Commander
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

stonester1 wrote: View Post
I think they'll do whatever they see fit to tell a good story...
Why should they start now? That would take a lot more effort than they put into this movie.

Tyberius wrote: View Post
Wow, you do actually get it don't you? I was beginning to think that you were obtuse, but you are just stubborn.
Whereas you're just rude and condescending. Did I ever post anything suggesting I didn't understand the MWI? On the contrary, I've not only discussed the science but explained at length why I think it's not dramatically appropriate for the Trek universe.

Tyberius wrote:
lawman wrote: View Post
I've never argued that the MWI approach to this story is impossible. I've just argued that it's unnecessary and undesirable, and moreover that even if we accept it for the sake of argument, it doesn't actually explain Spock's motivations as questioned in this thread.
It absolutely does. If Spock discovered that the many worlds interpretation was fact, there would be absolutely no reason to time travel, as you split the universe anyway.
And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.
__________________
Blogging on pop culture and politics at SmartRemarks
lawman is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 08:20 PM   #214
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

^Including yourself.

You've still failed to suggest a viable way in which Spock could "repair" the timeline without risking severe disruption of it in other ways. Until you can do so, the entire discussion seems to be moot.

Frankly, I'd find discussing this far more entertaining than the interminable and ultimately most likely irrelevant conversation about which version of time travel theory is occurring in the film. Interminable because at this point people seem to largely just be restating their arguments, irrelevant because a) I doubt sequel films will address the question and b) does anyone who's spoken here -really- seem likely to change their current opinions on the subject? If not, what's the point in continuing to hammer at each other? Let's move on already.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 08:35 PM   #215
stonester1
Rear Admiral
 
stonester1's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

lawman wrote: View Post
Why should they start now? That would take a lot more effort than they put into this movie.
Doing what they see fit? I assure you, sir, that's just what they did. And I assure you they will do that again. Seems to have worked the first time. And if you choose not to vote with your own ducats, I think they'll be ok.

__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
stonester1 is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 08:43 PM   #216
JBElliott
Commander
 
JBElliott's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
EJA wrote: View Post
Spock Prime doubtless knows of a number of ways to travel back in time and prevent Nero from embarking on his rampage resulting in the destruction of Vulcan (e.g. slingshot around a star, Guardian of Forever, etc). So why doesn't he do this?
Because even if he did, all he'd be doing was creating another timeline where Vulcan wasn't destroyed (and that's if he's even successful...who's to say the Vulcans would even believe him?). But Vulcan will still remain destroyed in the Abramsverse, and Romulus will still be destroyed in the prime universe. Since he's stuck in this timeline and he can't go back to his original timeline, what's the point? He might as well make himself useful where he is, which is exactly what he did.
In all other Star Trek shows and movies, time travel was shown as affecting the universe of the time traveller and not creating a new universe.

In the latest movie, the time travel didn't do that. So there must be something different about the time travel in the previous incarnations of Star Trek and the one in the movie. Perhaps it was the red matter and super nova that shunted Spock' and Nero not just back in time, but to a different universe. Perhaps the red matter and super nova created a new universe when Nero and Spock' finished their time trip.

In any event, unless the red matter and super nova altered the laws of (Star Trek) physics in the new universe, Spock' could have time travelled in methods used in previous incarnations of Star Trek (sling shot, Guardian) and travelled back in time to save Vulcan and alter the future of the new universe. Apparently Spock' chose not to do that.
__________________
iPhone 2 iComm
JBElliott is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 08:46 PM   #217
stonester1
Rear Admiral
 
stonester1's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

He's participated in time travel and has seen how screwed up it can get. Further, this is not his timeline. He probably didn't believe he had the right. IMO, he felt it would be a better bet to help the Vulcan race and culture survive post this event.
__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
stonester1 is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 08:51 PM   #218
Tyberius
Commander
 
Tyberius's Avatar
 
Location: Twenty million die by fire if I am weak.
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

lawman wrote: View Post
Tyberius wrote: View Post
Wow, you do actually get it don't you? I was beginning to think that you were obtuse, but you are just stubborn.
Whereas you're just rude and condescending. Did I ever post anything suggesting I didn't understand the MWI? On the contrary, I've not only discussed the science but explained at length why I think it's not dramatically appropriate for the Trek universe.
Well, interweaving modern physics into a 1970s TV show can do all sorts of things. MWI should be the least of your concerns. Also, drama is automatically lost when one knows the outcome of the episode already - viewing each episode with the hindsight of MWI is actually quite refreshing. IDIC.
lawman wrote: View Post
Tyberius wrote:
lawman wrote: View Post
I've never argued that the MWI approach to this story is impossible. I've just argued that it's unnecessary and undesirable, and moreover that even if we accept it for the sake of argument, it doesn't actually explain Spock's motivations as questioned in this thread.
It absolutely does. If Spock discovered that the many worlds interpretation was fact, there would be absolutely no reason to time travel, as you split the universe anyway.
And did Spock make that "discovery" somewhere in this movie? Did he have a single line of dialogue to that effect? Perhaps when I was out getting popcorn? No? No. Then how exactly do you see anything being "explained"? All you have is sheer speculation, just like everyone else in this thread.
Yes, it occurred while you were out getting popcorn.
Tyberius is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 08:52 PM   #219
JBElliott
Commander
 
JBElliott's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

stonester1 wrote: View Post
He's participated in time travel and has seen how screwed up it can get. Further, this is not his timeline. He probably didn't believe he had the right. IMO, he felt it would be a better bet to help the Vulcan race and culture survive post this event.
I'm not sure those rules apply when genocide and the lives of six billion (or however many billion) Vulcans are in question. Spock' isn't above "cowboy diplomacy." It's certainly something Kirk' would have done.
__________________
iPhone 2 iComm
JBElliott is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 08:56 PM   #220
stonester1
Rear Admiral
 
stonester1's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

JBElliott wrote: View Post
stonester1 wrote: View Post
He's participated in time travel and has seen how screwed up it can get. Further, this is not his timeline. He probably didn't believe he had the right. IMO, he felt it would be a better bet to help the Vulcan race and culture survive post this event.
I'm not sure those rules apply when genocide and the lives of six billion (or however many billion) Vulcans are in question. Spock' isn't above "cowboy diplomacy." It's certainly something Kirk' would have done.
Not a question of cowboy diplomacy. This simply isn't his timeline. It would be similar to him using his future knowledge to warn everyone about the potential bad stuff coming down in this alternate timeline. It's up to them to deal with. He'll help the best he can.

It's not about "cowboy diplomacy". It's letting things take their natural course in a timeline not his own.
__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
stonester1 is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 09:04 PM   #221
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

JBElliott wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
EJA wrote: View Post
Spock Prime doubtless knows of a number of ways to travel back in time and prevent Nero from embarking on his rampage resulting in the destruction of Vulcan (e.g. slingshot around a star, Guardian of Forever, etc). So why doesn't he do this?
Because even if he did, all he'd be doing was creating another timeline where Vulcan wasn't destroyed (and that's if he's even successful...who's to say the Vulcans would even believe him?). But Vulcan will still remain destroyed in the Abramsverse, and Romulus will still be destroyed in the prime universe. Since he's stuck in this timeline and he can't go back to his original timeline, what's the point? He might as well make himself useful where he is, which is exactly what he did.
In all other Star Trek shows and movies, time travel was shown as affecting the universe of the time traveller and not creating a new universe.
True. But MWI does not conflict with what happened there.

- Every Backward trip creates a new reality from that point onwards.
- Every forward trip moves forward within said new reality.
- Most of the Time Travel stories are told from the perspectives of the characters.

JBElliott wrote: View Post
In the latest movie, the time travel didn't do that. So there must be something different about the time travel in the previous incarnations of Star Trek and the one in the movie.
That is an assumption. As explained above, the depiction of Time Travel linearly does not actually conflict with each backward trip creating a new reality.
JBElliott wrote: View Post
Perhaps it was the red matter and super nova that shunted Spock' and Nero not just back in time, but to a different universe. Perhaps the red matter and super nova created a new universe when Nero and Spock' finished their time trip.
Given your assumption, this sounds logical.
JBElliott wrote: View Post
In any event, unless the red matter and super nova altered the laws of (Star Trek) physics in the new universe, Spock' could have time travelled in methods used in previous incarnations of Star Trek (sling shot, Guardian) and travelled back in time to save Vulcan and alter the future of the new universe. Apparently Spock' chose not to do that.
If we assume that Spock is aware of the Alternate Reality, regardless of your assumption, Spock's sense of ethics would preclude interfering with the natural course of events.

Even if he found a way to get back in time to the Narada's arrival, he would need untold resources in order to stop the change.

He would also have to ensure that he can stop the Narada from emerging from the "lightning storm in space", which there is likely no physical capability to do.

If he destroys the Narada, the battle would be observed by the Kelvin, and the destruction of the Kelvin is still likely. One missile shot, and things may be even worse, with Kirk not being born at all.

If he tries to find a way to self-destruct the Kelvin, he would still be dealing with the butterfly effect from the anomaly and the Narada appearing, in front of the Kelvin, and exploding, leaving all kinds of advanced technology, which the Klingons would want to use, and would tip the balance of power in unpredictable ways.

Looking at the options, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to actually make such a change.

All of this reasoning and thinking, which Spock likely would have done, is simply too much technobable and explanation for the movie, and would not help the central story, but intsead would simply confuse the audience.

Therefore, the best way forward would be to simply leave it alone, which is what was done.
OneBuckFilms is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 09:23 PM   #222
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

^Thank you for bringing us back to the actual topic of this thread.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 10:54 PM   #223
lawman
Commander
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

stonester1 wrote: View Post
lawman wrote: View Post
Why should they start now? That would take a lot more effort than they put into this movie.
Doing what they see fit? I assure you, sir, that's just what they did. And I assure you they will do that again. Seems to have worked the first time. And if you choose not to vote with your own ducats, I think they'll be ok.

C'mon, smileys aside, you know where my snark was directed: Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman certainly did "what they saw fit" with Trek, but it didn't include telling a good story.

And I definitely won't be spending any of my "ducats" on any future films coming from this same writing/directing team.

stonester1 wrote: View Post
It's not about "cowboy diplomacy". It's letting things take their natural course in a timeline not his own.
But it's not a "natural course"... that's kind of the whole point of this debate. It's a course that has been altered in a very negative way.

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
Even if he found a way to get back in time to the Narada's arrival, he would need untold resources in order to stop the change....

All of this reasoning and thinking, which Spock likely would have done, is simply too much technobable and explanation for the movie, and would not help the central story, but intsead would simply confuse the audience.
As I've discussed, Spock had far more information and resources at his disposal here than he's had for any of his previous time jaunts... and taking the risk of long odds when the stakes are worth it (e.g., saving billions) is one of the things he learned from a certain old friend.

That said, there's one thing where I have to acknowledge you're definitely right: "reasoning and thinking" is clearly something the filmmakers feared would "confuse" audiences, and therefore went out of their way to avoid in this story.
__________________
Blogging on pop culture and politics at SmartRemarks
lawman is offline  
Old March 19 2010, 11:25 PM   #224
stonester1
Rear Admiral
 
stonester1's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

lawman wrote: View Post
But it's not a "natural course"... that's kind of the whole point of this debate. It's a course that has been altered in a very negative way.
And that's the way it goes. In the Primeverse, they don't rush about using time travel to "do over" every "negative thing" that has gone down. On the contrary. They make it clear that sometimes it's best to let events go, unintendend consequences and all that.

Plus, this is not SpockPrime's universe.

All this has been addressed as well, so there's no point in recounting it.

Spock said what he intended to do. I agree with it. Vulcan in this universe is toast. It's best to try to see if the race itself can survive. That's the better bet.

There isn't a technobabble reset button to every crisis that comes along. This timeline faces that squarely.

And I for one am glad.
__________________
"New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells
stonester1 is offline  
Old March 20 2010, 12:23 AM   #225
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

Heh.
Why doesn't Kirk go back in time to save Edith Keeler from the bus?
Why doesn't Picard go back in time to save everyone from Wolf 359?
Why doesn't Sisko go back in time to save Jennifer from the Borg?
Why doesn't Janeway go back in ti...oh wait, she did...
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.