Serious question time because I really don't know, nor do I feel that intensely about timelines. But, does the alteration of timelines in Star Trek completely diminish your interest in the story?
Timeline proof.
- Thread starter JcarlA
- Start date
I understand that the DTI has some archives that (no doubt because of captured anachronistic technology; think of the DTI as the Federation's MIB) are not only timeline-proof, but can be used to detect time-tampering. (And of course, El-Aurians can "hear" time-tampering.)
<Emily Litella>Oh. Proof of a particular timeline. That's very different. Nevermind.</Emily Litella>
All of Star Trek is the same timeline, with the following exceptions:
(1) Much of early-21st-century Litverse is in a timeline called Splinter One, as detailed in the CODA books.
(2) The MU is in a timeline that came into existence because "Requiem for a Martian" was produced instead of shredded (turning Star Trek into a laughingstock, and destroying its ability to influence Humanity for the better).
(3) The Abramsverse movies exist in a timeline that splintered off because Nero got thrown back to the early-Pike era by the same hypernova that set up the Romulan refugee crisis leading to Last Best Hope and the first season of PIC.
<Emily Litella>Oh. Proof of a particular timeline. That's very different. Nevermind.</Emily Litella>
All of Star Trek is the same timeline, with the following exceptions:
(1) Much of early-21st-century Litverse is in a timeline called Splinter One, as detailed in the CODA books.
(2) The MU is in a timeline that came into existence because "Requiem for a Martian" was produced instead of shredded (turning Star Trek into a laughingstock, and destroying its ability to influence Humanity for the better).
(3) The Abramsverse movies exist in a timeline that splintered off because Nero got thrown back to the early-Pike era by the same hypernova that set up the Romulan refugee crisis leading to Last Best Hope and the first season of PIC.
Last edited:
Generally, no.
I don’t care when the Eugenics war was supposed to be (as an example).
And I definitely don’t think it’s a “new timeline” because Kyle is Asian or April is Black. Roles get recast all the time. I’ve said before…should the guy who played Juliet in 1500 whatever be the ONLY person ever to play that role? It’s ridiculous.
Signed,
James R. Kirk
It makes me a little sad that SNW has now retconned the Prime Universe so that TOS and everything else is now something that didn't/won't happen. Or at least won't happen the same way.
In its quiet way, Tomorrow and tomorrow was o e of Treks most important episodes. It can free SNW to do as it pleases now.
I wish it were an alternative timeline, but that's not what the episode says.
I mean, does it really matter? Do episodes like "Timeless" not matter because the alternate future is erased at the end of the episode? It's not like TOS is being erased from existence. You'll still be able to watch it.
It still happens in a parallel time. "Parallels" and "The Mirror Universe" both established that. And, more importantly, I can freaking watch it on VHS any time I want and somehow, beyond the realm of our scientific understanding, I still find enjoyment in TOS. I know, it's strange...
Or "Living Witness?" Or the one with Jake Sisko altering the past?
Are those now worthless? Asking for a friend because right now I have a killer headache.
The one with Jake is called "The Visitor".
Also "Living Witness" doesn't involve time travel/parallel universes. Although I suppose you could argue that it still counts because pretty much the entire episode is just a holographic simulation and so may not have happened exactly as portrayed.
Khan is a superman created in the past who is brought back to life in our heroes' time after being placed in suspended animation aboard a space ship. He tries to take over the ship and is defeated by our heroes. What difference does the date make to that plot?
In the words of Captain Shaw: No.
The episode also features an alternate take on Voyager and its crew, just rather than being an alternate timeline or reality, it's a completely fictional take created by the aliens of the week and is part of their skewed perspective of history.
It makes all the difference. The Eugenics wars were delayed by 50 years. Who is to say that Khan even boards the Botany Bay any more. Events would/will be completely different
It doesn't change the episodes themselves. It doesn't change a thing.
It’s fiction. Events will happen however they’re writ.
OK Guys, upthread - someone asked and said:
"Serious question time because I really don't know, nor do I feel that intensely about timelines. But, does the alteration of timelines in Star Trek completely diminish your interest in the story?"
I'm just giving my answer to that question. For me personally, it makes a difference for the reasons that I tried to articulate. I think its an interesting and bold choice to retcon 50 odd years of storytelling with one episode. Its not a creative choice that I can get behind, but it gives the creative team carte blanche to take the characters and plot elements and go where they like with them. Its freeing for them, they are no longer straight-jacketed by being a prequel.
I prefered JJ Abrams approach, which was to respect what went before and simply say, we're using these characters and this ship and this universe that you've known and loved. But we are a parallel reality. Akiva Goldsman has just come in and said that you know, we're changing the timeline that you know and love and - essentially, future episodes can contradict what came before and events will be different. Spock may no longer sacrifice himself, he could fall in love with Chapel, Kirk can be completely different in this timeline, its all good.
I'm not devastated or anything extreme like that - but it diminishes the old shows in my opinion. A bit like how watching Crystal Skull diminished my appreciation of Indiana Jones, or how the new Star Wars movies diminished the Star Wars legacy. Jedi's happy ending is now tainted by the knowledge that Luke and Han were unhappy and had a genocidal son. These wonderful old 'franchises' see diminishing returns. The audience slowly fades away and they become niche programming. I see this happening with Star Trek, the films dont succeed at the box office and the viewing figures are falling. Hopefully, Picard Season 3 will convince the producers of a way forward that doesn't alienate their audience.
Of course, opinions are different, but thats my take on things.
Star Wars and Star Trek are definitely not dying. The penultimate Star Trek film (Into Darkness) was in fact the highest grossing in the franchise's entire history.
Not taking inflation into consideration.
Well then, adjusted for inflation, the highest grossing Star Trek film in the US and Canada is... Star Trek (2009). (I can't find the data for worldwide grosses adjusted for inflation.)
Either way, the franchise is not dying.
Honestly? Not completely, but a bit. I don't like anything that tosses me out of a story while I'm watching it.
I'm not nuts about the subsequent Trek shows' tendency to rewrite TOS decades after the fact when most of the people working on the new shows had nothing to do with the original. In my mind WWIII and The Eugenics Wars were one and the same thing because that's what "Space Seed" said, and I was pretty happy that SNW tied them together again after decades of TNG & the other Berman shows saying they were two separate things.
But I also try to keep some perspective on this stuff and remember the difference between my headcanon and actual Star Trek canon. I've also gotten very, very used to ST rewriting its own timeline(s).
Yeah, I agree. If you make a disappointing follow up 15-20 years after the originals, it just brings the whole franchise down. I hate how The Force Awakens made the heroes of the Original Trilogy into retroactive failures.
Which is more of testament to how much people enjoyed ST09 rather than Into Darkness being any good. And people obviously didn't care for STID as much, since they didn't turn out as strongly for Star Trek Beyond.
Except the TOS films have an average Rotten Tomatoes rating of 67%, the TNG films 58%, and the Kelvin films 88%. Into Darkness has an individual rating of 84% and Beyond 86%, making them higher rated than every other film except Star Trek (2009) (the highest rated with 94%), First Contact (the second-highest rated with 92%), and The Wrath of Khan (which is tied with Beyond with 86%). Objectively speaking the Kelvin films are a high point for the franchise.
Similar threads
