Klingon change for season 2?
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
Then make it more clear. You just disagree, without offering any kind of back-up to your opinion, much less even an argument, nor are you even answering simple question.
It's almost as if you want to be misunderstood. Try to get out there and actually explain your position! Nobody here can read your mind.
I've explained it plenty of times and so have others in this thread. Star Trek doesn't need to follow the events of our 1990s or 1980s.
And it already hasn't because of the Eugenics War and other events that contradict it.
Another example is cryonics, in took off Star Trek's 90s, but didn't in ours.
https://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/1990s
And don't forget Scotty jump-starting the discovery of transparent aluminium in the 1980s.
And it already hasn't because of the Eugenics War and other events that contradict it.
Another example is cryonics, in took off Star Trek's 90s, but didn't in ours.
https://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/1990s
And don't forget Scotty jump-starting the discovery of transparent aluminium in the 1980s.
I see you edited your post. I'm going to answer that in a new post, and let the original one stand as it was:
Just to counter-point:
Star Trek takes absolutely place in the same OUR fictionalized universe. Like James Bond or Die Hard or, yeah, "First Man".
I see you still haven't answered my simple question. At this point I just assume because you can't without breaking your own argument.
Just to counter-point:
- "The Voyage Home"'s 1986 was our (fictionalized) 1986.
- VOY's 1996 was our (fictionalized) 1996
- ENT's "Carpenter Street"'s 2004 took place in our (fictionalized) 2004
- the ENT opening credits bridge the time between our (fictional) 2018 and 2150s.
Star Trek takes absolutely place in the same OUR fictionalized universe. Like James Bond or Die Hard or, yeah, "First Man".
I see you still haven't answered my simple question. At this point I just assume because you can't without breaking your own argument.
And neither did James Bond's gadgets exist in the 60s, or Cyberdine Technologies or the Nakatomi corp. building in the 90s. That's simply what makes it fiction. It doesn't mean it takes place in an alternate timeline in-universe.
Probably. It just looks like semantics. But we could confirm that (and could have a while ago) if you just gave an answer to the simple question: Do you think "James Bond" or "First Man" are supposed to take place in "our" reality?
Last edited:
Altering the timeline creates an alternate timeline, unless said events are a predestination paradox. Which we don't know if Kirk and Co. travelling back to the 1980s altered the timeline, or just fulfilled their roles.
All of it takes place in a "fictional universe" of course. Because it's fiction. Wether it's "Titanic" or "Harry Potter" or "Star Trek".
But in-universe it's supposed to be "our" reality. Not an alternate timeline. The actual "real" reality (without aliens and timetravel) is simply not part of the fictional universe. In-universe, it takes place in this one reality: "Our" fictional reality.
I genuinely feel like this is a distinction without a difference. I don't see "our reality" as being one consistent with the present. Is "First Man" to take place in "our history?" Yes, but it alters it largely because it is freezing time and using Hollywoodizing of reality.
So, I'll meet in the middle and say it exists in our "Hollywood reality." Largely because there is a bit of a Heisenberg uncertainty principle here.
So, I'll meet in the middle and say it exists in our "Hollywood reality." Largely because there is a bit of a Heisenberg uncertainty principle here.
You know I've always taken for granted that Star Trek though fictional references our world, therefore we are its history. Many examples of Trek doing that. If we are its history then is it not our (fictionally projected) future?? At least in part?
Star Trek is our world in the same way the Marvel universe is. The "present day" is always essentially ours despite things having happened (Eugenics Wars and Khan ruling 1/4 of the world, Super Soldier Serum/Nazi splinter group Hydra and all their technology) which should have massively changed things.
As I said I think it is a little bit of both. At the same time it feels both its own thing, like its own history, as well as part of our world. I'm not convinced that anything is lost by it not being our world, as I think valuable lessons can still be taught from it as an alternate history in some form. But, that, again, a distinction without a difference.
I think a franchise crosses the way to a "parallel timeline" only if some major, world-changing events happen in the present day in the story on-screen. Say: "Independence Day" started out in "our" world. But then the aliens came. At the time of "Independence Day: Resurgence", the franchise is clearly in a parallel universe to our own. The MARVEL franchise started out as "our" Hollywood-reality (I really like that description @fireproof78 
). It was "The Avengers" that firmly put the MCU in a parallel timeline, with it's arrival of aliens, gods, and the public revelation of superheroes.
If a story could take place in our world without any major repercussions, I think it's usually supposed to be set in "our" world. The technology of the James Bond franchise would probably have world-changing repercussions. But it doesn't. Because it's never made public. John McClane's adventures should be major news stories. Sherlock would be prominent. But they are all supposed to be in "our" reality.
Star Trek actually never had any of those world-changing events happening in the present on-screen. Whenever they showed the "present" (be it in 1986, 1996, or 2004) it was always clearly "our" present. The world-changing events always happen in the future. Sometimes reality takes over the fictional "future" - like the Augments in 1996, and probably coming in the year 2064 when we probably won't have a warp drive but probably still "Star Trek" on the air. But in each of those cases, Star Trek ceased to depict that on-screen. This was always only ever given as background exposition, and thus is clearly primed for revision and out-weighed but what's actually shown on screen.
). It was "The Avengers" that firmly put the MCU in a parallel timeline, with it's arrival of aliens, gods, and the public revelation of superheroes.If a story could take place in our world without any major repercussions, I think it's usually supposed to be set in "our" world. The technology of the James Bond franchise would probably have world-changing repercussions. But it doesn't. Because it's never made public. John McClane's adventures should be major news stories. Sherlock would be prominent. But they are all supposed to be in "our" reality.
Star Trek actually never had any of those world-changing events happening in the present on-screen. Whenever they showed the "present" (be it in 1986, 1996, or 2004) it was always clearly "our" present. The world-changing events always happen in the future. Sometimes reality takes over the fictional "future" - like the Augments in 1996, and probably coming in the year 2064 when we probably won't have a warp drive but probably still "Star Trek" on the air. But in each of those cases, Star Trek ceased to depict that on-screen. This was always only ever given as background exposition, and thus is clearly primed for revision and out-weighed but what's actually shown on screen.
Last edited:
Here is why I think this destinction is important:
Because it has nothing to do with "realism" (Star Trek isn't hard-SF, it is not "realistic").
But it's critical for the message of the story.
I think for both "Starship Troopers" and "Star Trek" it's critical that both are supposed to represent our future, because that's what they tell us about us, and what the creators of each property see the paths we are taking as humanity.
That's a clear contrast to elseworld-tales: "Star Wars" is not supposed to give us a preview of our own future, it's to tell a universal story. If Han Solo would suddenly stumble upon present-day Earth, that would actually be detrimental to the mythological status of Star Wars. In a different manner, "Man in the High Castle" is clearly supposed to tell us something about us as well: What we would be if we were living in a completely different universe. What parts of us would actually be the same, what different. (That's also why the Mirror Universe when done right is more interesting than the Kelvin-verse: The Kelvin timeline is almost indestinguishable from the prime one)
"Firefly" is also supposed to take place in our future, because no major changes happen in "our" present days. But this show is more focused on individual characters, it's not supposed to give commentary on humanity's development as a whole - it could be changed to an alternate timeline, and it wouldn't loose much of it's message.
OTOH for Star Trek, it's one of it's core foundational pillars and main appeals that it is a possibility for our future. To contrast with all the other bleak and apocalyptic future predictions, to show that we as humanity can come together, and that is't inherintly human to better ourselves, and that's the part we are taking on, despite the doubts and the occasual step back. That's a core message of the Star Trek IP, and that simply doesn't work nearly as much in a parallel timeline.
Because it has nothing to do with "realism" (Star Trek isn't hard-SF, it is not "realistic").
But it's critical for the message of the story.
I think for both "Starship Troopers" and "Star Trek" it's critical that both are supposed to represent our future, because that's what they tell us about us, and what the creators of each property see the paths we are taking as humanity.
That's a clear contrast to elseworld-tales: "Star Wars" is not supposed to give us a preview of our own future, it's to tell a universal story. If Han Solo would suddenly stumble upon present-day Earth, that would actually be detrimental to the mythological status of Star Wars. In a different manner, "Man in the High Castle" is clearly supposed to tell us something about us as well: What we would be if we were living in a completely different universe. What parts of us would actually be the same, what different. (That's also why the Mirror Universe when done right is more interesting than the Kelvin-verse: The Kelvin timeline is almost indestinguishable from the prime one)
"Firefly" is also supposed to take place in our future, because no major changes happen in "our" present days. But this show is more focused on individual characters, it's not supposed to give commentary on humanity's development as a whole - it could be changed to an alternate timeline, and it wouldn't loose much of it's message.
OTOH for Star Trek, it's one of it's core foundational pillars and main appeals that it is a possibility for our future. To contrast with all the other bleak and apocalyptic future predictions, to show that we as humanity can come together, and that is't inherintly human to better ourselves, and that's the part we are taking on, despite the doubts and the occasual step back. That's a core message of the Star Trek IP, and that simply doesn't work nearly as much in a parallel timeline.
This stands out to me as another possible distinction. The idea of a possible future is to be differentiated between that and obviously our future. I think that needs to be noted and a possible source of contention is that "this is our past, out future" without acknowledgement, tacit or otherwise, that there are minor changes to support the development of the world.
At least, for me, when I write fiction, I select a point in time, and make that distinct from how history continues on. It might be a possibility, but it isn't "ours" per se. Again, this is really filleting this thing down to scraps.
Trek may have started out as an indistinct future that in theory might be "ours", minor issues notwithstanding. But within TOS already, it decided to actively steer away from that: it decided the future we see came to be because of major things happening in the 20th and 21st centuries already.
We the audience have now lived through much of that. Many of us will see the day when everything is supposed to change, and yet it won't. What is the practical relevance of that?
Well, Trek tells us that the future is bright because fictional things will happen. Not because of us or our work, but because of fiction. Trek dismisses us and our world as a factor in the future. How can it be "our" future, then?
Timo Saloniemi
We the audience have now lived through much of that. Many of us will see the day when everything is supposed to change, and yet it won't. What is the practical relevance of that?
Well, Trek tells us that the future is bright because fictional things will happen. Not because of us or our work, but because of fiction. Trek dismisses us and our world as a factor in the future. How can it be "our" future, then?
Timo Saloniemi
That's true for ALL science fiction though - "Alien" takes place in 2122, Prometheus way earlier - it's already pretty unlikely humans will have colonized that much of the cosmos at that point. We have already catched up to the years of "Blade Runner", "Back to the Future" and "2001 - A space Odyssee". Yet all of these pieces are supposed to take place in "our" future, and the commentary is about our humanity, not some alternate timeline.
If you keep that rigorous standard you apply to Star Trek - there will simply be NO science fiction left at all.
Is this thread still about the changes being made to the Klingon's in season 2? 
You can make commentary on our humanity without it being strictly our timeline. Alternate, for this purpose, being the "What if?" of speculative fiction (Sci-fi and fantasy).
Similar threads
