Hated it
- Thread starter KSoldier
- Start date
For me, and just me, it informs BOTH. I gather information from many sources, filmmakers, critics, reviewers and the comedians, and make my choices from there. Beyond that, I really don't know what else to say, other than I disagree that people who are educated in film making (or different aspects) offer little, if anything to reviews. I find that to be opposite in the case of the reviews I read. Maybe it is terminology, and being able to give words to why I enjoy a particular film.
The idea that being educated in film making makes the opinion less valuable, still no less an opinion I'll grant, is baffling to me
However, to each their own.
I don't think that the Mirror Universe stories are out of sync, but happen in tandem, with occasional crossover, such in ENT and DS9, where different events had occurred, and one universe impacts the other (i.e. technological development in ENT, and Defiant's development in DS9).
1) You're overlooking the reason for my response, namely fireproof78’s claim that they were “unsure of what the traditional ‘time travel rules’ are”. I believe single universe time travel is by far the most traditional.
2) While I don’t suppose anyone ever said: Star Trek has to operate by time travel method X, its pretty clear Star Trek used the single universe system. Not the “Back to the Future” version I grant you.I mean, I can’t recall any examples where it was obvious a new universe was created when time travel happened (including the last two movies!). But I would guess many time travel outings in ST wouldn't work if branching occurred. I'm not sure about the "Enterprise" Mirror universe stories. Was that just the time being out of sync?
I'm really uncertain how to describe the time travel beyond the mechanism used to do so. Given that Red Matter is the tool used and is new to the universe, I'm going to go out on a limb and expect that this time, time travel works differently, and not hold it to any prior instances. However, there are prior instances in which "non-traditional" rules have applied, especially in the Mirror Universe cases, as the TOS era Defiant passes through an "interphase window" and ends up in the past, but also in a different (i.e. parallel) reality.
Hopefully that is a little more clear
Last edited:
That's the technobabble, in-universe pretext, of course, but in the real world it was meant to reboot the franchise and launch a brand-new STAR TREK movie series.
The last thing the filmmakers intended was for the 2009 movie to be perceived as STAR TREK XI. The whole point of the marketing was that this was "not your father's STAR TREK," remember?
In practical, real-world terms, it served as a reboot--with a cute time-travel gimmick linking it to the old version.
I don't think that the Mirror Universe stories are out of sync, but happen in tandem, with occasional crossover, such in ENT and DS9, where different events had occurred, and one universe impacts the other (i.e. technological development in ENT, and Defiant's development in DS9).
I'm really uncertain how to describe the time travel beyond the mechanism used to do so. Given that Red Matter is the tool used and is new to the universe, I'm going to go out on a limb and expect that this time, time travel works differently, and not hold it to any prior instances. However, there are prior instances in which "non-traditional" rules have applied, especially in the Mirror Universe cases, as the TOS era Defiant passes through an "interphase window" and ends up in the past, but also in a different (i.e. parallel) reality.
Hopefully that is a little more clear
Of course, the old "interphase window" trick. How could I have forgotten that?
But yes from what I can find out, it seems there is at least one example in ST of time travel that doesn't fit the standard single universe mould. I guess the reason its problematic for me is the fact that those "Enterprise" episodes are claimed to be prequels to the TOS one. Why then is there no apparent technological difference between the TOS prime and TOS mirror universes if the latter have had TOS era tech for what, a hundred years or so? I can only imagine this isn't the same Mirror universe as seen in TOS. Or am I missing something?You say "Given that Red Matter is the tool used and is new to the universe ...". Actually I don't think the time travel method is that important in deciding what was really going on. I mean, there were a number of different (and I think new) methods use in ST (even in TOS) but most were restricted to a single universe result. It seems to me its more about how the actual universe responds to the time travel event (whatever caused it) that is critical. In nuTrek, branching occurs, in older Trek, typically it didn't (Although there appear to be one or two occasions where they "somehow" manage to jump to a separate but already existing universe).
There's no reason it can't be a combination of both...
Red Matter could just as easily poke a time-travelling hole into a pre-existing alternate universe, the branching aspect was just speculation by the nu-crew.
Or, it could have been that in previous time travelling trips a branch occurred, but our heroes managed to return to the same universe, and only think they've "reset the timeline". This is an way to perhaps explain discrepencies between various productions, etc. if one wished.
Red Matter could just as easily poke a time-travelling hole into a pre-existing alternate universe, the branching aspect was just speculation by the nu-crew.
Or, it could have been that in previous time travelling trips a branch occurred, but our heroes managed to return to the same universe, and only think they've "reset the timeline". This is an way to perhaps explain discrepencies between various productions, etc. if one wished.
Well sure, the way you explain it, its almost inevitable!
Of course I realise Red Matter is the Swiss Army Knife of Black-hole creators but ... . Actually though, I don't think the nu-crew mentioned branching universes. Had they done so it would have been easier to figure out this wasn't "time travel as usual" (or at least as usual used to be). I think that was JJ or the writers afterwards wasn't it? You mean they managed to find their way back to the version of the universe where the thing they are trying to prevent never actually happened, having just fixed that thing in the branch universe they created when the went back to fix it? That's clever. What's more, I guess finding the correct universe to go back to shouldn't be that hard if a Red Matter Black-hole can find a near identical universe at random as a by-product of a by-product of what it was supposed to do.
I don't think that the Mirror Universe stories are out of sync, but happen in tandem, with occasional crossover, such in ENT and DS9, where different events had occurred, and one universe impacts the other (i.e. technological development in ENT, and Defiant's development in DS9).
I'm really uncertain how to describe the time travel beyond the mechanism used to do so. Given that Red Matter is the tool used and is new to the universe, I'm going to go out on a limb and expect that this time, time travel works differently, and not hold it to any prior instances. However, there are prior instances in which "non-traditional" rules have applied, especially in the Mirror Universe cases, as the TOS era Defiant passes through an "interphase window" and ends up in the past, but also in a different (i.e. parallel) reality.
Hopefully that is a little more clear
Of course, the old "interphase window" trick. How could I have forgotten that?
You say "Given that Red Matter is the tool used and is new to the universe ...". Actually I don't think the time travel method is that important in deciding what was really going on. I mean, there were a number of different (and I think new) methods use in ST (even in TOS) but most were restricted to a single universe result. It seems to me its more about how the actual universe responds to the time travel event (whatever caused it) that is critical. In nuTrek, branching occurs, in older Trek, typically it didn't (Although there appear to be one or two occasions where they "somehow" manage to jump to a separate but already existing universe).
Well, the "trick" is that temporal mechanics are not hard and fast rules, save for at the mercy of the plot. If the opinion is that Trek has never done this type of time travel before, save for a few occasions, then I'll just take the movie at face value, that the mechanics of a red matter black hole formed a quantum bridge to an alternate reality, that close to the Prime reality but history then altered because of the Narada's incursion.
As for the Mirror Universe, one aspect of empires, especially in speculative fiction, is that technological development slows down. I would imagine that the MU Terran Empire would spend years developing and reverse engineering TOS era tech and only build up a power base to Federation levels by TOS era.
Yes, People on the Internet always say that, making it one of those Things People on the Internet Always Say. You know who never calls it a reboot? The people who made the films.
Then hiring Leonard Nimoy and calling his character "Ambassador Spock" would seem to be a strange choice on their part.
2) While I don’t suppose anyone ever said: Star Trek has to operate by time travel method X, its pretty clear Star Trek used the single universe system. Not the “Back to the Future” version I grant you.
I would argue that this is what happened during First Contact, in fact.
Because calling it a reboot doesn't offer them any advantages.
They pretty much called it a reboot when they gave it the title that it has.
2) While I don’t suppose anyone ever said: Star Trek has to operate by time travel method X, its pretty clear Star Trek used the single universe system. Not the “Back to the Future” version I grant you.
I would argue that this is what happened during First Contact, in fact.
I think First Contact follows the same type of time travel as with the Guardian (and several other examples). Basically something allows the universe to change around them, usually hand waved as some sort of temporal energy field. Those don't really make logical sense, but it's a fairly consistent method throughout Trek.
Every time travel instance in Trek could be (note, "could be", not "definitely is"--I cannot claim to legitimately supersede authorial intent) explained as an act of "branching/creating a new universe".
It is posited, in the "branching theory", that any incidence of time travel actually creates a new branch (thus obviating the grandfather paradox, among other things). Trek's own continuity, in Parallels, shows us a vast number of parallel universes that are extremely similar to each other. So, what if every instance of time travel, in all of Trek, resulted in a return to a nearly exact, but not totally precise, version of where they'd left from? We follow the perspective of the characters in Trek. To the characters, the time to which they return would appear identical to that which they left, so they'd not bother investigating further. And their parallel selves, in such a nearly identical universe, would simply have travelled themselves and re-emerged in a nearly identical universe of their own, an so on. If there are indeed infinite parallel possibilities, then this could have been the case in each instance of time travel. The stories are not told that way, of course, as it would usually diminish the stakes for the characters and the implicit suggestion they can never actually "fix" the timeline would make time travel stories less dramatically involving. In the case of JJ Abrams' Trek, the time travel in rather incidental, for two reasons. One, it was not deliberately sought out--neither Nero nor Spock "Prime" wanted to time-travel. Two, for once, we see the story from a perspective outside that of the main characters. Instead of following the characters who time travelled (Nero and Spock "Prime" excepted--but they are secondary characters in the film), we follow the unfolding of the new branch from the point of view of those who were altered or created "whole cloth" by the new branch. So, in reality, the TOS characters left the "Prime Universe" in The Naked Time.
It is posited, in the "branching theory", that any incidence of time travel actually creates a new branch (thus obviating the grandfather paradox, among other things). Trek's own continuity, in Parallels, shows us a vast number of parallel universes that are extremely similar to each other. So, what if every instance of time travel, in all of Trek, resulted in a return to a nearly exact, but not totally precise, version of where they'd left from? We follow the perspective of the characters in Trek. To the characters, the time to which they return would appear identical to that which they left, so they'd not bother investigating further. And their parallel selves, in such a nearly identical universe, would simply have travelled themselves and re-emerged in a nearly identical universe of their own, an so on. If there are indeed infinite parallel possibilities, then this could have been the case in each instance of time travel. The stories are not told that way, of course, as it would usually diminish the stakes for the characters and the implicit suggestion they can never actually "fix" the timeline would make time travel stories less dramatically involving. In the case of JJ Abrams' Trek, the time travel in rather incidental, for two reasons. One, it was not deliberately sought out--neither Nero nor Spock "Prime" wanted to time-travel. Two, for once, we see the story from a perspective outside that of the main characters. Instead of following the characters who time travelled (Nero and Spock "Prime" excepted--but they are secondary characters in the film), we follow the unfolding of the new branch from the point of view of those who were altered or created "whole cloth" by the new branch. So, in reality, the TOS characters left the "Prime Universe" in The Naked Time.
^
Why time travel should be permanently banned from science fiction.
Why time travel should be permanently banned from science fiction.
Nah. Can't go there. Think of all the classic stuff we'd lose: The Time Machine, the entire Terminator franchise, much of Planet of the Apes, Twelve Monkeys, Time After Time, Somewhere in Time, Back to the Future, Groundhog Day. And, oh yeah, Doctor Who.
Heck, in Trek alone, we'd lose City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Assignment: Earth, All Our Yesterdays, The Voyage Home, Yesterday's Enterprise, Tapestry, Star Trek: First Contact, Trials and Tribble-lations, Little Green Men, Future's End . . ..
It may not always be consistent, but time-travel has given us plenty of great stories. And it's got a pretty good track record where Trek is concerned.
Last edited:
It's a reboot. Reboots can take many forms, in this case its a "sidequel". It reboots the series by creating an alternate Universe where the characters can develop unhindered by decades of continuity. Call it the DC method. DC Comics has rebooted its continuity several time by creating alternate universes at start their characters anew.
And if there's one organization that's managed the challenge of keeping up decades of sometimes-sloppy, sometimes-overtight, sometimes-contradictory continuities in the face of vociferous fan bases attached to specific subsets of those universes, without producing confusing muddles of exposition in establishing the alternate universes and continuities and rules by which they can interact or be added to, it's DC Comics!
Similar threads
