Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Merge]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by GeneHunt, May 11, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Re: Why did spock end up in the alternate universe??

    The in-universe reason why they don't do it is because they have the Temporal Prime Directive, Temporal Investigators and in later centuries Timeships that undo violations of the timeline.

    Nobody would be allowed to stop Sisko from travelling to the Gamma Quadrant, because that was simply the natural flow of things.

    And nobody would allow Nero to fuck up the past over a period of 25 years and kill 6 billion people. Somebody on one of the timeships would notice (since this timeships are unaffected by the changes), and prevent Nero from coming out of the black hole in front of the Kelvin and destroying her.
     
  2. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Re: Why did spock end up in the alternate universe??

    Perhaps it's because from Daniels' is from the alternate future Nero created, and it's part of the normal flow of events from POV, that he doesn't interfere? Maybe Braxton and co from Voyager weren't involved because they only police the TOS+ era of the Prime timeline.

    It's a time police jurisdiction thing :vulcan:.
     
  3. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Re: Why did spock end up in the alternate universe??

    LOL, what sense does it make to only guard a section of a timeline? Something that happens before would influence everything after it. And a ship that is disconnected from the timeline (like it was depicted in Voyager) would notice any changes and do something about them, no matter when they happened.
     
  4. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    Considering it was Daniels' job was to keep an eye on the 22nd century-era of the Temporal Cold War it would seem that those in charge of the show chose to give him jurasdiction over "time policing" there/then.

    But really, what sense do time police make at all?

    None. There were so many holes in Daniels' story alone I find it hard to believe he's capable of doing anything more than crying to Captain Archer for help. The Voyager time police were hapless idiots who, both times they showed up, were the cause of the trouble they were sent to prevent.

    Considering their track record, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the time police tried and failed to stop Nero.
     
  5. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    Re: Why did spock end up in the alternate universe??

    On screen, Spock didn't "let" Nero do anything.

    You're still thinking of BasherSpok, hero of the rewrite.

    There were alternate timelines in previous canon, aka "the original universe".

    But the "Spock we know from the TOS universe" would have stayed around to assist the Abramsverse Federation and Vulcans before doing so. BasherSpok, on the other hand, would have just given those people the collective finger.

    Besides, he doesn't need to "figure out a way"; he already knows a way.

    Unless, of course, he is in fact logical.

    ( I know, I know: TOS Spock? Logical? Madness! )
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2010
  6. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Re: Why did spock end up in the alternate universe??

    In this context, "probably" is a total weasel-word.
     
  7. Whill

    Whill Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Re: Why did spock end up in alternate universe?

    The real reason that Spock ended up in an alternate universe is because they still wanted to allow for the possiblity of the orginal universe to still exist, for two reasons:

    1. An attempt to placate all the haters of the new franchise who felt that the new destroyed the old. They hoped that the old timeline still existing would help some of the detractors let go of their hate and allow themselves to enjoy the new Trek, ultimately to have some of the old franchise customers also be new franchise customers as well. There are people like me who like both Treks, and spend money on both.

    And even if they had just stated that the original timeline had simply been erased to be rewritten over, I can't believe the number of irrational old franchise fans that feels that the new Trek has any bearing on their Trek. Real life isn't like Back to the Future where your old Trek DVD collection just fades away when the 2009 movie came out. You all still have your old Trek. Each fan can pick and choose his own personal canon. For example, in my personal original Trek canon, TMP, TFF and Nemesis simply do not exist. If you don't like the new Trek, just pretend it never happened and continue to enjoy your old Trek. Don't waste time hating on the new Trek timeline if you don't like it. Ignore it. The old Trek franchise was virtually dead anyway. It was either going to stay dead, or be rebooted. If you prefer, just enjoy the old Trek as you had before the new film.

    2. The second reason for establishing the new timeline as an alternate reality is to still sell the old franchise. The new movie can't really hurt sales of the old franchise (new stories only existing in non-primary media such as novels and the online game). The old timeline still sells a bit after all. And with no new official canon (film or TV) for the old timeline to maintain, they are free to go Tellerite-wild and do whatever they want. The new franchise is still going to allow the old franchise to at least sell to the old customers.

    As far as in-universe explainations, I caution people when citing previous stories about time travel and alternate realities. Time travel has been handled extremely inconsistantly throughout Trek's history. Even within the TOS itself.

    If you want to be technical, how come the landing party still existed near the Guardian when McCoy went back and changed history in TGotEoF? If the Enterpise in orbit was erased from existance, then how could they still be on the planet? Because, how else can Kirk and Spock go back to rescue McCoy and fix things. It's a contrivance of the story. And don't even get me started on the one where they beam the American pilot back into himself.

    Sometimes, it seems that the travelers just merely serve to become a part of their own history, like the predetermination "destiny" theory. Often things get changed but there is an opportunity to correct things. But there is the grandfather paradox of changing something that would not have resulted in time travellers not going back to change it, but if they hadn't gone back to change it then how could it be changed... and which came first the chicken or the egg?

    I love time travels stories (well, some of them), but I don't hold them to be too consistent. So I say, perhaps the temporal rules of the universe change depending on the method and other circumstances of the time travel. Perhaps these circumstances can't always be predicted or understood. So there is an inherent risk in time travelling, even for a good purpose like saving a planet. Perhaps the elder Spock-prime from 2387 is more aware of these dangers than he was in his 23rd century days, maybe even a little more aware than the 24th century Trek characters we know the adventures of. Maybe he now realizes how lucky these prime-Starfleet officers had been by not totally screwing up the univese/multiverse.

    I've read that after using time-travel to have an in-universe explaination for the reboot, they plan to retire time travel as a story element in the franchise, at least in the films. As much as I love time travel stories, I agree with this plan. It's been done already many times. You can't start citing precendents by saying that when every disaster happens, time travel should happen to prevent it. That would be boring and reduce the drama. Be orginal. Solve problems without time travel.

    Perhaps this new "red matter black hole" method of time travel permanently change cosmological aspects of the new alternate universe that prevent slingshot around the sun, Guardians and time orbs from working there. Perhaps there could be an in-universe reason why they can't just time travel any more. Maybe Spock-prime is stranded in the new universe.

    Or, maybe this new realization of the divergent timeline cast doubt for Spock whether any good every came out of time travel, because maybe he now accepts the possiblity that for every previous time travel, it may have only just created a new divergent reality, which leaves the "previous" timeline uneffected after all. So he might now believe that every time he travelled back in time he may have just hopped into an divergent timeline and wants to end the cycle. Maybe Spock feels guilty about allowing Romulus to be destroyed in his previous timeline, but now that he is in an alternate reality, he knows he is really unable to prevent that Romulus from being destoyed (only the new reality's Romulus). And if he went back to before the Nerada incursion created the divergent timeline, he still couldn't save Vulcan in his current timeline because he might only be entering yet another timeline. And maybe he also wants to stay around in the new universe to help set things more like his timeline since it is so drastically different by 2258 now.

    There are a lot of possiblities for no more time travel.

    Personally, I also like the idea of time travel creating divergent realities. It solves the causality paradoxes as our modern understanding of quantum physics suggests. Nero created the new reality just by appearing in it, but the old reality is still there somewhere else in the multiverse. The Nerada and the Jellyfish just disappeared from that prime realitiy in 2387, never to return, but the timeline still exists which is what allows for the events leading up to leaving that timeline. The old franchise "prime" canon is still intact.

    And it allows for a time travel explaination for the Mirror Universe. That reality may have been created when someone from the Prime universe (or yet another universe) went back in time and to at least the 1600s and initiated the events leading to Terran Empire being created. That reality diverged and the TOS and DS9 adventures into the MU are considered travelling "sideways in time". Of course, another possiblity is that the Prime Universe was created by time travel from the Mirror Universe!
     
  8. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Re: Starfleet rank system?

    ^That sounds fine, and you pretty much covered everything, but sadly the haters of STXI are incapible of shutting up about it, and continue to spam threads with "proof" that Spock Prime somehow isn't the guy from TOS, and that anyone who likes the film is mentally handicapped.

    Rather than doing the "pretend it doesn't exist" thing they feel the need to "prove" that their interpretation of the situation is the one true path.
     
  9. I-Am-Zim

    I-Am-Zim Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Starfleet rank system?

    This is a discussion board. We are here to discuss things. You discuss the merits of the Abramsverse while I discuss its flaws. You can't have a totally one-sided discussion. And telling people to "shut up about it" doesn't help matters. It just makes you look immature and childish.

    I'm happy to "pretend it doesn't exist". But that doesn't mean that I can't discuss my position on a discussion board about STAR TREK. I don't remember anyone saying that trekbbs was a "JJ lovers only club":guffaw:.
     
  10. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    Re-read my post. I wasn't talking about discussion about the merits of the film, I was talking about the unconstructive trolling that goes on.

    But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?
     
  11. I-Am-Zim

    I-Am-Zim Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    Nope. I wouldn't.
     
  12. Whill

    Whill Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    That's sad. Yes, this is a place for discussion, but I don't undestand why people that hate the new franchise spend so much time and energy on discussing it. Aren't there other things that they actually enjoy and would rather discuss? I'm not going to start ranting about why I dislike films I, V and X. Why would I bother? I'm going to discuss things I enjoy.

    The internet confirms over and over that there are so many people that just have so much negativity in their lives that they feel they must spread it around to others. Have they nothing better to do with their lives?
     
  13. I-Am-Zim

    I-Am-Zim Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    Hahahahahaha! Personally, I love my life. I have a great life. And since this is a place for discussion, whether pro or con, and considering the fact that I (a "hater" according to you) started the "Circumstantial Evidence" part of this thread, have you considered that it may by the JJ lovers who need to find better things to do with their lives than hanging out in a thread that clearly goes against what they believe in while calling us "trolls" simply because we don't agree with them? Hmmmmm. The double standard simply boggles the mind. Its bad when those of us who don't share the majority opinion aren't even welcome in our own threads.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2010
  14. number6

    number6 Vice Admiral

    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    After all you're very constructive.
     
  15. I-Am-Zim

    I-Am-Zim Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    Indeed I am. I provide a valid opinion with evidence and explanation to back up my opinion. And if I do not agree with another's opinion, I will explain why I don't agree and provide examples and exposition. That is considered constructive discussion.
     
  16. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    Well, you'll be reminded that they have a perfect right to do so.

    This is true. Having the right to do a thing, and doing that thing being sensible, worthwhile or even particularly respectable beyond a certain point, are entirely different things.
     
  17. number6

    number6 Vice Admiral

    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    Well, you take one or two random things out of context and blow it all out of reasonable proportion to support a flimsy argument based on a personal taste that few are content to blindly share. If that's your definition of constructive, then I am glad you don't write dictionaries for a living.
     
  18. I-Am-Zim

    I-Am-Zim Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    And I have every right to express my opinion based upon my personal taste just as you do. That's what discussion boards are for. Besides, my arguments are not that flimsy. There is plenty of evidence to back each one up as I have demonstrated on numerous occasions. Some simply refuse to acknowledge it. And that is not my problem. I just call 'em like I see 'em. If you don't agree, feel free to rebut my claims with actual arguments with actual descriptions and explanations for why you disagree. All I usually see is name calling, insults, and derogatory comments with no substance at all. Hardly what I'd call "constructive".
     
  19. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    When someone has convinced themselves that they are only going to see what they want to see, even when others give them information to the contrary, then any meaningful, constructive discussion is now over, and we now get into troll country. Needless to say, that's where we are now.
     
  20. I-Am-Zim

    I-Am-Zim Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    Re: Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Me

    The same can be said for those who don't want to see. They have convinced themselves that there is nothing there and those of us who see it are wrong. It's like they plug their ears and close their eyes and scream "lalalalalalalalalalalala! It goes both ways. Thankfully, I haven't gotten to that point yet. I'm perfectly willing to entertain arguments against my claims. Howwever, no evidence to the contrary, save for a few simply saying that there's nothing there, has been presented to me. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind actually seeing some real evidence to the contrary. Something I could work with. Something that would actually sow a seed of doubt in my mind. So far, that hasn't happened. However, there is quite a bit of evidence to support my position.

    Worry not. The discussion will get more "constructive" soon, I hope.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.