• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Hated it

^The timeline was clearly different but that doesn't mean it's a parallel timeline rather than a single one being rewritten.

Point taken, but since this is all fake anyway, the guys who created this fake universe say that it runs parallel to that other fake universe and didn't rewrite it, so I'm inclined to go along with what they say, since, you know, it's all fake.

If we really want to go down this road - pretty much every prior instance of time travel in Trek results in time being rewritten, not spawning an alternate timeline; this is going all the way back to City on the Edge of Forever, and as far forward as First Contact. The 'alternate universe' theory breaks with the established rules of the show.
 
And? Best way to enjoy time travel stories, I've concluded, is to just go with whatever mechanics the storyteller chooses, sit back and enjoy the ride. Makes for a much more relaxing and fun experience.
 
Am I one of the only ones who hated the Trek reboot?

Yes. And if you want to be a part of this community for very long, opening right out with bashing a movie series will not be a good way to start.

Ironic that ST was built on IDIC - a tolerance for differences and opinions.

I see that you, just like political correctness of today only brook ideas and opinions that are the same as yours.


EVERYTHING that is wrong with the PC ideology of today.

:rolleyes:
 
Am I one of the only ones who hated the Trek reboot?

Yes. And if you want to be a part of this community for very long, opening right out with bashing a movie series will not be a good way to start.

Ironic that ST was built on IDIC - a tolerance for differences and opinions.

I see that you, just like political correctness of today only brook ideas and opinions that are the same as yours.


EVERYTHING that is wrong with the PC ideology of today.

:rolleyes:
Tulin, that post was addressed by me six weeks ago when it originally occurred. It's old business, and you're dredging it up trying to start new trouble. That won't fly here, so knock it off and take any axe-grinding agenda you may have concerning political correctness to some forum more appropriate to that topic.
 
And? Best way to enjoy time travel stories, I've concluded, is to just go with whatever mechanics the storyteller chooses, sit back and enjoy the ride. Makes for a much more relaxing and fun experience.

Amen. When I hear someone tell me "that's not how time travel works" I can only wonder how they managed to solve the puzzle themselves. It's all speculation, take it for what it is as long as it's internally consistent, and enjoy!
 
The 'alternate universe' theory breaks with the established rules of the show.

There are no "established rules" in Star Trek - just self-contradicting continuity.

Ironic that ST was built on IDIC - a tolerance for differences and opinions.

No, it wasn't.

It was built on a couple of years of ripping good skiffy dramas and adventure stories - with spaceships! - before Roddenberry hit on the idea of IDIC as a way to sell some mail-order jewelry during a third-season episode. :cool:
 
Ironic that ST was built on IDIC - a tolerance for differences and opinions.

No, it wasn't.

It was built on a couple of years of ripping good skiffy dramas and adventure stories - with spaceships! - before Roddenberry hit on the idea of IDIC as a way to sell some mail-order jewelry during a third-season episode. :cool:

+1
 
The only difference between Red Matter and most of the technobabble on the later shows is that they didn't bother making up a nonsense technoname for it, like purpurasubstantium (basically "red matter" in Latin).
 
There are no "established rules" in Star Trek - just self-contradicting continuity.

There's precedence.
Such as "Time Squared", where alt. Picard and his shuttle faded away, Back to the Future-style? Or "Yesteryear", where Spock wishes Thelin a long life in his timeline? How do you reconcile these with your preconceived notion of how Trek time travels should work?
 
This whole "debate" about "time travel rules" solves itself if we just assume it's a lot easier for our heroes to say "We need to fix the timeline" instead of what they actually mean, such as "we need to go back in time and change things in such a way as to create another alternate quantum reality that's close enough to the one we prefer and return to its future."

Once Parallels was broadcast, pretty much all bets were off. "All possibilities that can happen do happen in alternate quantum realities."

It does not matter if Nero came back via Guardian, Red Matter, DeLorean, Elton John Air Boat, Atavachron, slingshot, or TARDIS -- the nanosecond he arrived, it was a different quantum reality.

On 2233.04, there were two possibilities: 1. A pissed off Romulan from the 24th century would arrive and destroy the Kelvin. and 2. A pissed off Romulan from the 24th century doesn't arrive and the Kelvin goes on its merry way.

Per previously established canon explanation in Parallels, an explanation verified by the events in that same episode, at least two quantum reality paths existed on 2233.04 -- the Prime quantum reality, and the one in which Nero arrived. In the case of the 2009 movie, the cameraman and the rest of the production staffed chronicled the events of the latter. It's as simple as that.

Add to that -- the writers, who are the people in charge of the physical laws of the Star Trek multiverse (e.g. God,, Fate, Time, Subspace), stated that Parallels is the explanation.

Period. End of story.

f1k56v.jpg
 
Er, not really.

There's room for it all here. We've seen both the BTTF style linear time travel, as initiated by the Guardian of Forever, time loops aplenty in TNG, and we've seen the more modern quantum shifting type of time travel as exampled by Parallels.

The combination of the red matter as the source for the creation of the black hole, and the creative intent to follow in the footsteps of Parallels (as you mentioned), plus the pretty clearly stated "alternate reality" infodump scene all sums up to what we got in the 2009 film: a side trip into an alternate reality where Nero makes a hash of the formerly prime universe, that still allows the prime reality to carry on and continue on a separate track, despite the real-world fact that we may never see it in canon again.

Personally I'd still argue that the wildly-different-from-TOS-or-even-BermanTrek Kelvin technology and depiction further cements the 2009 film as taking place in a completely alternate reality even from the get-go, pre-black hole.

YMMV (but really, why would you? :D)
 
Where is the best place to put a discussion of TOS vs. AbramsTrek? TOS? Here?

I did not enjoy NuTrek. Even on its own, I found it dumb and nonsensical. Calling it Star Trek just added insult to injury.

I'm not alone in this opinion, though I often feel rather lonely in it. :)
 
I did not enjoy NuTrek. Even on its own, I found it dumb and nonsensical. Calling it Star Trek just added insult to injury.

You're perfectly fine to find it dumb and nonsensical. But there's an awful lot of Star Trek out there that fits that description. Including some TOS, my favorite series.
 
I did not enjoy NuTrek. Even on its own, I found it dumb and nonsensical.

That's great! Nobody says you can't dislike it. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you.

Calling it Star Trek just added insult to injury.

And this comment is pure hyperbole.

I'm not alone in this opinion, though I often feel rather lonely in it. :)

It's been nearly six years since the picture came out. It's perfectly understandable that some people might be over such things. :shrug:
 
Where is the best place to put a discussion of TOS vs. AbramsTrek? TOS? Here?

I did not enjoy NuTrek. Even on its own, I found it dumb and nonsensical. Calling it Star Trek just added insult to injury.

I'm not alone in this opinion, though I often feel rather lonely in it. :)

I love the movies.

Also, where the heck have you been (It's me, J. Allen)?!
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top