^ Because the writer came right out and ADMITTED it was a mistake. And besides, it's obvious anyway.
Prime Universe time travel and the new timeline
- Thread starter alpha_leonis
- Start date
I know that Ron Moore has admitted that it was a sloppy error on his part.
However, it was also a mistake that the writers of Space Seed expected a Eugenics War to take place in the 1990s since that did not happen, by 1982 it was obviously not going to happen and yet TWOK perpetuated the error anyway!
Both factoids exist on screen and are stated as undisputed by the numerous characters in all those scenes.
If Trek fans choose to ignore one set of statements in favour of another that's personal preference, but both are canon.
However, it was also a mistake that the writers of Space Seed expected a Eugenics War to take place in the 1990s since that did not happen, by 1982 it was obviously not going to happen and yet TWOK perpetuated the error anyway!
Both factoids exist on screen and are stated as undisputed by the numerous characters in all those scenes.
If Trek fans choose to ignore one set of statements in favour of another that's personal preference, but both are canon.
I am Jack's complete lack of interest in whatever the debate is that's going on here.
I was just responding to King Daniel's comment about Khan referencing the 1990s (saying that makes me think of Khan wearing ripped jeans and listening to Pearl Jam while playing Pogs in front of a poster of the X-Files in the Botany Bay)
And now I'm picturing Khan hoarding his America OnLine discs for their five free hours each, so he can get into a really good squabble with Alexander Abian about the need to destroy the Moon and move Venus to a better orbit.
The writers didn't expect the Eugenics Wars to take place in our own timeline - that's just a fictional event they invented for Trek. To think that DS9's line is somehow definitive just because of this, does not make a ton of sense. (And by "a ton of" I mean "any.")
Mistakes have happened before. They can be, and are, ignored. Moore's flub about "200 years ago" on DS9 is just one of these. It is not canon, because it makes no sense to have it be. The Eugenics Wars obviously didn't happen in Trek's 2100's, so any line that says they do, can be dismissed as irrelevant.
Although if you insist, you could say that Admiral Bennett was actually referring to the Augments arc in ENT. That was about 200 years before the events of "Doctor Bashir, I Presume", amirite?
I believe the entire Star Trek Prime timeline is set and meant to be in ours. The writers of TOS certainly weren't meaning to offer the show as one from someone else's timeline when it inspired so many people in their lives and career paths. As I've said, it gives us a future we can look forward to with hope and optimism. The alternate reality is meaningless because the characters and timeline we came to accept as our possible future has been left behind in favor of watching someone else's life from afar. But see next quote:
I choose to understand it as an attempt to correct the record. But your last sentence is a good one and about the best we all can do to agree with each other despite the cognitive dissonance.
Khan and any of his followers over the age of 29 would have had to have been born before the air-date of Space Seed in 1967 in order for them to be on ice by 1996, so unless Roddenberry and co. thought there were massive genetic engineering and eugenics programs in effect around the world as the show went into production, it's safe to say they weren't overly concerned about making sure this was taking place in an accurate representation of "our world" either.
The same could be said for the non-existent orbital nuclear platforms that Gary-7 neutralized being launched about a Saturn V from the non-existent McKinley Rocket Base.
It's a hopeful vision for the future, but the fact that it diverges from our actual history doesn't change that.
Or we're already in an alternate reality.
Sure. Every reality is an alternate to the rest. We're in the one we call Prime.
While I do agree that we may not agree, I do not understand how it being an alternate reality is less inspirational or motivating. Just because it wasn't our reality does not mean that the optimism and attitudes are not something to strive for.
Much in the same way, just because Middle Earth is not a part of Earth's history does not mean that there cannot be inspiration for society or individuals.
I actually find nuKirk a little more relatable than I did Prime Kirk. I gravitated more towards Prime Spock from TOS, though Prime Kirk is a lot of fun.
Regardless, for me, I never enjoyed Star Trek because I saw it as a vision of humanity's future. I enjoyed it because of the characters and technologies on display, but, as Mr. Nimoy pointed out, it will come down to personal interpretation.
, I do not understand how it being an alternate reality is less inspirational or motivating. Just because it wasn't our reality does not mean that the optimism and attitudes are not something to strive for.
Much in the same way, just because Middle Earth is not a part of Earth's history does not mean that there cannot be inspiration for society or individuals.
Regardless, for me, I never enjoyed Star Trek because I saw it as a vision of humanity's future. I enjoyed it because of the characters and technologies on display, but, as Mr. Nimoy pointed out, it will come down to personal interpretation.
QFT! And the bolded part of the quote is my feeling as well.
Let's me add my two quatloos: The pivotal events of Star Trek IV take place largely in the late 80's. I would accept that the tv series of Star Trek did not exist in that story, because those characters and those people were living that reality. Those characters and those people were the reality.
Even alternate realities can have many similar events in their respective timelines. Our reality, and the timeline of Star Trek share many historical similarities but clearly differs in A. the existence of the characters of Kirk and company, and B. the event of the Eugenics Wars. It's easy for reality and fiction to share the same past....writing about the future, that's when history for the fiction is truly being made.
Just because there were no real Eugenics Wars in the real world, does not mean that the writers have to retcon the Prime Trek Universe's "reality" so that it plays out according to the real world in which we live.
In Trek Prime's "reality", the Eugenics Wars could very well have happened.
I mean, suppose the Trek series lasts for another 50 years, and then during that time, we never have global thermonuclear war? If the series were to continue the Prime timeline down that road, the writers could still say that WWIII happened when it did, because it was the history established for Star Trek in the days of yore.
Exactly. Star Trek quit being our universe a long, long time ago. Orbital Nuclear Weapons platforms in 1968 ("Assignment: Earth"). Voyager 6 (Star Trek: The Motion Picture).
I'm sure there are other examples, but I'm still sleepy.
Like many sci-fi series set in the present day, Star Trek is a "close enough" version of our timeline. I doubt anyone in 1981 really thought that a sapient Pontiac Firebird was driving around California solving crimes, any more than folk in 1968 thought that an orbital weapons platform was being launched at the same time they were sat there watching TV. They're events that might happen certainly, but events that more properly belong firmly in a fictionalised version of the world we live in.
It's the same for Kahn IMO, in that eugenics experiments were a known phenomenon by the mid 1960s; hence it was feasible that sufficiently advanced experiments might have produced super-babies by the early 70s.
Trying to tie Trek history exactly into our own is never going to work exactly, nor was it (I believe) intended that way - its just the nature of TV-sci fi.
It's the same for Kahn IMO, in that eugenics experiments were a known phenomenon by the mid 1960s; hence it was feasible that sufficiently advanced experiments might have produced super-babies by the early 70s.
Trying to tie Trek history exactly into our own is never going to work exactly, nor was it (I believe) intended that way - its just the nature of TV-sci fi.
I've seen this attempt to equate the two before. I don't believe in an anthropocentric world of wizards, goblins, and magic, but I do enjoy the tales of Middle-earth. I also like Star Wars, but while it might inspire me to work for ILM, it does not inspire my worldview or deeper thought about our potential. I don't believe we can acquire the Force or the use of magic. Middle-earth doesn't strive for the stars. I do believe in science, unity, cooperation, and our potential as a space-faring race.
Star Trek is as much our world as the Marvel movieverse is - seems it at first glance, but dig a little deeper and...
Inspiration is derived from multiple sources. I refer to Tolkien because he drafted Middle Earth as a "lost history" of sorts for England, in a way that Greeks and Romans had their mythologies. I derive as much inspiration from the ideas of cooperation, acceptance, failure and triumph as I do from Star Trek's concepts. The characters are just as relatable (addicts, doubters, failures, etc.)
Likewise, Star Trek illustrates concepts and archetypes that our species can strive for, but they don't have to be historically or scientifically accurate for me to find inspiration. As I said, nuKirk is a fascinating example of my contemporary and younger generations. Just because it is an "alternate reality" doesn't make them less identifiable people.
But, as I have said, art as inspiration comes down to the individual and their interpretation of the art.
So far, imo, NuTrek has better represented our timeline. Prime-Trek pretty much loses that race right out of the gate. Finger-tipped-fanged-Shape-shifting-Salt-Vampires a possibility in our reality?
I dare you to go try and sell that in the S&T forum.
I dare you to go try and sell that in the S&T forum.
Because faster-than-light travel, artificial gravity, and transporters are totally realistic things that could really happen, unlike goblins and wizards and magic.
Sarcasm is easy. Science, that's hard.
Similar threads
