Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 2x03 - "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow"

[TerryTrek]

Are you forgetting Worf and all the different universes he traveled to.
All those are existing "timelines".

They weren't created by alternations to the timeline. Those were supposed to be different realities. The possibility that any and all possibilities always exist. Data explains it.

There's also some ambiguity within that episode as to whether that incident actually happened.

 

[Yistaan]

Who knows? I stopped caring after T2.

I hear you, I stopped caring about Khan and the Eugenics Wars after Star Trek II.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Who knows? I stopped caring after T2.

It seems weird that people have difficulty with the idea of timeline changes in STAR TREK of all fandoms.

This is a lot less confusing than Ocarina of Time and its sequels.

 

[DaveyNY]

Yes, but they're parallel universes not branching timelines.

And, again, there's no reason to believe that the Red Matter wormhole brought them into the past versus a parallel past.

At the point where Nero went into the first wormhole it became another parallel universe.
(as well as an alternate timeline)
The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[NCC-73515]

To those who don't want other people to discuss X just because they themselves don't care about X...

Khantinuity Khanon Khantemplation Khan be a Singhnifikhant joy for some, just like ship discussions are for some, or the details of the tech. Several aspects can be enjoyed Singhcronously and Khanplaining about other people having a different set of favorite aspect Khanbinations just sends the wrong Singhnal.

 

[ichab]

Star Wars isn't set in our Galaxy.

So? Both Star Wars and Star Trek are works of fiction.

 

[Sci]

The comparisons are not valid. You're trying to compare ideas changed during development to changes made after they were already put on screen. The two are not the same. It's not canon until it hits celluloid. Lucas deciding to make Luke and Leia siblings in the third movie is nothing like changing the Eugenics wars and Khans age being changed.

You're right -- Lucas deciding to make Luke and Leia siblings is a much bigger narrative issue than whether Khan reigned in the 1990s or 2040s. Functionally, "Space Seed," The Wrath of Khan, and Into Darkness are not meaningfully different if Khan's era of origin is different -- he only needs to be from the past.

But making Luke and Leia into siblings makes A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back into very different movies than they were when first released, because suddenly they have this major incest subtext that wasn't there before Return of the Jedi was released!

 

[Charles Phipps]

At the point where Nero went into the first wormhole it became another parallel universe.
(as well as an alternate timeline)

Yes but that way lies madness since it implies that there's been no TOS timeline since "Tomorrow is Yesterday."

 

[Yistaan]

It seems weird that people have difficulty with the idea of timeline changes in STAR TREK of all fandoms.

We're going to have to get used to it. I'm still chafing on this week's episode now but also realize this thing will probably be necessary again and more often. 2063 is getting closer and actual alien contact, barring a sudden literal public alien visitation, is not. The timeline delay here may be a trial run for shifting the entire Trek franchise timeline into the future to still make it "our" future. Basically every in-universe date in Trek is now open to be delayed and the showrunners have shown a willingness to do so to keep Trek "our" future.

 

[Charles Phipps]

We're going to have to get used to it. I'm still chafing on this week's episode now but also realize this thing will probably be necessary again and more often. 2063 is getting closer and actual alien contact, barring a sudden literal public alien visitation, is not. The timeline delay here may be a trial run for shifting the entire Trek franchise timeline into the future to still make it "our" future. Basically every in-universe date in Trek is now open to be delayed and the showrunners have shown a willingness to do so to keep Trek "our" future.

"They use the Roman calender in 2063."

"Ahhhh! That's why my dates were so off! They don't use the Reformed Neo-Earth Calender!"

 

[TerryTrek]

I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say here. Why would someone who believes in progressive politics and wants to see a progressive future think that World War III and a descent into barbarism goes against the progressive message they're sending? It's entirely consistent with progressivism to depict humanity as finally embracing progressive politics and rejecting regressive politics after experiencing a horrific war caused by regressive politics.

One would assume that. However, that's not what Akiva is mentioning.

If they present the 2020s as on the verge of being a brutal, savage and barbarous dystopia.. it would go against the 'aspirational' messaging that they are supposedly trying to convey. Because they see Star Trek as 'our universe.'

That's their logic for pushing everything off.

https://www.cinemablend.com/streami...e-and-what-the-showrunner-has-to-say-about-it

 

[DaveyNY]

Yes but that way lies madness since it implies that there's been no TOS timeline since "Yesterday's Enterprise."

The Multiverse exists to drive folks crazy.

 

[Yistaan]

"They use the Roman calender in 2063."

"Ahhhh! That's why my dates were so off! They don't use the Reformed Neo-Earth Calender!"

They should've stuck with stardates and avoided Earth years. It was literally in the TOS writers' bible. It's literally why stardates were invented.

 

[NCC-73515]

What was the Khantext there? They showed a Europa mission, sanctuary districts, a Roykirk plaza, the OV-165 in PIC S2 because it is not our real world.

Khantext is for Singhs.

 

[Sci]

One would assume that. However, that's not what Akiva is mentioning.

If they present the 2020s as on the verge of being a brutal, savage and barbarous dystopia.. it would go against the 'aspirational' messaging that they are supposedly trying to convey. Because they see Star Trek as 'our universe.'

That's their logic for pushing everything off.

I think he's talking about tone, not politics or thematic content. Basically, I think he's saying, "My job is to make you feel good about your future. I can't do that if I have to depict the apocalypse as coming just around the corner."

 

[Charles Phipps]

They should've stuck with stardates and avoided Earth years. It was literally in the TOS writers' bible. It's literally why stardates were invented.

Yep.

I think he's talking about tone, not politics or thematic content. Basically, I think he's saying, "My job is to make you feel good about your future. I can't do that if I have to depict the apocalypse as coming just around the corner."

To be fair, a reasonable response is, "You think the people in the 1960s were less concerned about the apocalypse?"

 

[TerryTrek]

I think he's talking about tone, not politics or thematic content. Basically, I think he's saying, "My job is to make you feel good about your future. I can't do that if I have to depict the apocalypse as coming just around the corner."

Something like that.

Beyond the idea of addressing past inconsistencies of Star Trek, Akiva Goldsman and fellow showrunner Henry Alonso Myers felt it was imperative to alter the dates of these key in-universe events in order to keep the "aspirational" part of the series alive. With the dates officially pushed forward, we can now all say that the future of Star Trek is still possible in our world, provided we can work to get there.

 

[Sci]

Yes but that way lies madness since it implies that there's been no TOS timeline since "Tomorrow is Yesterday."

Yeah, if we start taking every change to the past as meaning that it's a different timeline thereafter, then Star Trek would have jumped timelines dozens of times by now. For instance, if Khan reigning in the 2030s instead of the 1990s means SNW isn't in the same timeline as TOS, then Sisko replacing Gabriel Bell in 2024 in "Past Tense, Parts I & II" would mean every episode of DS9 that aired afterwards, every episode of VOY that aired afterwards, FC, INS, and NEM would all have taken place in a different timeline than TOS, TNG, and early DS9.

They should've stuck with stardates and avoided Earth years. It was literally in the TOS writers' bible. It's literally why stardates were invented.

Well, that ship sailed in 1988.

 

[DaveyNY]

Something like that.

Beyond the idea of addressing past inconsistencies of Star Trek, Akiva Goldsman and fellow showrunner Henry Alonso Myers felt it was imperative to alter the dates of these key in-universe events in order to keep the "aspirational" part of the series alive. With the dates officially pushed forward, we can now all say that the future of Star Trek is still possible in our world, provided we can work to get there.

But to get there, according to what we already know about the Trek Universe, we have to go through Khan's rule and WWIII.
So those events can't be pushed completely out of the historical progression.

 

[NCC-73515]

A bad thing being necessary for a long-term good thing is classic Trek: You need to hit peace ladies with trucks to stop a war before it gets even worse, you need to fight Nausicaans and sacrifice your heart to have a career, you need to let your mom kill herself (forgot what the point was there),...