Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

[Sci]

Earlier this year, Pocket Books published two anthologies of short novels called Star Trek: Myriad Universes. Essentially a set of "What If...?"s, each novel took elements from Star Trek and told stories about the characters in new and different timelines with unique histories. It made for great reading.

I'm happy to hear that this new film is essentially a Myriad Universes tale in that respect. I think that having multiple continuities will strengthen Star Trek.

It also nicely solves the question of how to view TOS in light of this movie. The answer: We get to have them both be equally valid, as different versions of the timeline co-existing with one-another! :Techman:

 

[Cyke101]

I like that we're debating the merits, ideas, and theories of quantum mechanics for a movie based on a show that showcases a giant space amoeba, a big green hand, and Abraham Lincoln in space.

"His explanation of time travel makes no sense!!"

Neither do space hippies!

 

[Kail]

I knew this all along, Orci has only confirmed it. It was really the only way to go.

 

[trekkerguy]

I like that we're debating the merits, ideas, and theories of quantum mechanics for a movie based on a show that showcases a giant space amoeba, a big green hand, and Abraham Lincoln in space.

"His explanation of time travel makes no sense!!"

Neither do space hippies!

I couldn't have said it better.

Seems they are finaly injecting some actual scientific theory into a show that normaly relies on the particle of the week...

 

[Saul]

If this is a Myriad universe tale then why is our Spock in it?

 

[Balthier the Great]

One thing Orci is saying is they've basically retconned what time travel tended to mean in Star Trek. Timelines are no longer "set right," but whole new universes are formed. That is, according to the latest and greatest current and most accepted and tested and breath-freshening theory out there -- quantum theory.

Man, I don't know. Something about all this sounds like a cheat, but I don't have time to give it enough thought today. They are the characters, but they aren't the characters. We're seeing them at the start of their careers, but these will be different careers. Something about this isn't very satisfying. Sounds like they are trying to have their cake, and eat it, too. (Though in some universes, the cake has you and eats you. ) If that's the case, then I'd have rather seen a clean cut with the past and a complete reboot.

Well, the movie may still be rip-roaringly entertaining. And that's the most important thing in the end.

It's not a cheat. It's the "many worlds hypothesis" read a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_hypothesis

Long story short, all of the possible outcomes of history happen somewhere on some other "world-line" Our world line has i.e Obama winning. Another has Hillary winning, or McCain, or Huckabee, or Ron Paul, or Romney. Multiply that by every event that has happened and there are trillions of universes including one in which Trek never existed.

The many-worlds interpretation could be one possible way to resolve the paradoxes that one would expect to arise if time travel turns out to be permitted by physics (permitting closed timelike curves and thus violating causality). Entering the past would itself be a quantum event causing branching, and therefore the timeline accessed by the time traveller simply would be another timeline of many. In that sense, it would make the Novikov self-consistency principle unnecessary.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Jeez, those guys really have gone to great lengths to come up with an explanation that allows them to do with the characters and the ship as they wish without violating the holy Canon (well, sort of).

Sometimes I think it would have been easier to simply declare the movie a "reboot" or a "re-imagination" ála Casino Royale or nuBSG. Perhaps the only problem would have been: If it's a re-imagination, why does Leonard Nimoy appear as Spock? Shouldn't he at least appear as an ex-terrorist?

Anyway... so the movie is "Canon" now... in a manner of speaking.

 

[Cyke101]

If this is a Myriad universe tale then why is our Spock in it?

The same reason why we can have Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, and Uhura in an alternate universe...

 

[Allyn Gibson]

One thing Orci is saying is they've basically retconned what time travel tended to mean in Star Trek. Timelines are no longer "set right," but whole new universes are formed. That is, according to the latest and greatest current and most accepted and tested and breath-freshening theory out there -- quantum theory.

Star Trek has played it both ways over the years -- there's a single timeline that can be altered, and there's an infinite number of branching alternate universes. For the former, see "City on the Edge" or "Yesterday's Enterprise." For the latter, see "Parallels" and the Mirror Universe.

 

[Kail]

If this is a Myriad universe tale then why is our Spock in it?

Obviously our Spock has followed Nero from our timeline.

 

[The]

Well, the movie may still be rip-roaringly entertaining. And that's the most important thing in the end.

Amen!!

I like that we're debating the merits, ideas, and theories of quantum mechanics for a movie based on a show that showcases a giant space amoeba, a big green hand, and Abraham Lincoln in space.

"His explanation of time travel makes no sense!!"

Neither do space hippies!

I just pissed myself!!

 

[James Bond]

I don't like this at all. In fact, I'm very disappointed in this news. Why did they even need to explain away the small details at all? If the fanboys felt the need to whine, the TPTB should have just told them to go fuck themselves.

Whatever, I'm still optimistic the movie is going to be awesome; but yeah this really puts a damper on my enthusiasm right now.

 

[Captain X]

They felt the need to explain so all the fanboy gushers would have another excuse to jizz in their pants at the thought of how brilliant they are for making the movie this way, that's why.

 

[M'Sharak]

It's certainly a way to do a Reboot without doing a Reboot.

It's a way to do a Reboot without "raping" childhoods and whatnot, beyond that timelines and such don't matter, this is the Trek we'll have and the one people will recognize as the "real" Trek.(Again, outside a group of droolers)

God, still obsessing about a tidbit to keep you hardcore fans quiet?

They felt the need to explain so all the fanboy gushers would have another excuse to jizz in their pants at the thought of how brilliant they are for making the movie this way, that's why.

If everyone* could please dial back the snark a few notches, I think we could have a much more productive discussion here. Really, there's no need for that sort of stuff, is there?

(And yes, I do remember who was aiming the term "drooling masses" first at whom, thank you.)


* NOTE: "everyone" should not be interpreted as meaning "limited to the examples I have cited here" -- I've been seeing too much of this from quite a number of people. It should be entirely possible to carry on a discussion without taking digs at those who disagree with you; I'd like to see more effort made in that direction.

 

[Psion]

It's certainly a way to do a Reboot without doing a Reboot.

It's a way to do a Reboot without "raping" childhoods and whatnot, beyond that timelines and such don't matter, this is the Trek we'll have and the one people will recognize as the "real" Trek.(Again, outside a group of droolers)

God, still obsessing about a tidbit to keep you hardcore fans quiet?

They felt the need to explain so all the fanboy gushers would have another excuse to jizz in their pants at the thought of how brilliant they are for making the movie this way, that's why.

If everyone* could please dial back the snark a few notches, I think we could have a much more productive discussion here. Really, there's no need for that sort of stuff, is there?

(And yes, I do remember who was aiming the term "drooling masses" first at whom, thank you.)


* NOTE: "everyone" should not be interpreted as meaning "limited to the examples I have cited here" -- I've been seeing too much of this from quite a number of people. It should be entirely possible to carry on a discussion without taking digs at those who disagree with you; I'd like to see more effort made in that direction.

Sometimes I feel like I'm once again a Trekker in junior high around here, with all the digs and put-downs that are flung. I'm a bit more mature now with a thicker skin, but the temptation to toss all my notebooks into the air and spaz out on the nearest jock sure gets refreshed an awful lot. I thought we were ALL fanboys here.

 

[USS Intrepid]

Just seems like an easy out to me.

People are still unhappy, but it's "an easy out"?

Touche!

 

[cooleddie74]

Space Hippies make perfect sense.

You just have to smoke a big enough bowl of Risan Wowie first.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

Anyone who's paid close attention to the past 700 episodes and 10 movies of "Star Trek" will recognize two basic facts:

1. Every instance of time travel uses a different method and scientific rationale (warp-10 slingshot, Guardian of Forever, chronometric displacement, Bajoran Orb of Time, temporal Nexus, time vortex, etc.), and has a different result (self-fulfilling time loop, multiple parallel timelines, altered timelines that can be "repaired" through further meddling, etc.).

2. Through all the "Star Trek" series, there have been at least two dozen distinct and mutually exclusive timelines (not even including the self-fulfilling causality loops). For example, in TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise," it depicted the original timeline where the Federation was at war with the Klingons; Picard's decision to send the Enterprise-C back in time to save a Klingon outpost created the alternate timeline that we see in every other TNG episode, where Worf serves in Starfleet and the Klingons are allies.

The entire series of "Star Trek: Enterprise" takes place in the alternate timeline created when Picard and the Enterprise-E went back in time to fight the Borg in "Star Trek: First Contact." "Enterprise" episodes showed wreckage of the Borg sphere on Earth, and mentioned Cochrane's recollections of the Borg attack. (We can assume that after the Enterprise-E returned to the future, it returned to the "Enterprise" timeline, rather than the one it was in at the beginning of "First Contact.") So the movie "Star Trek: Insurrection" takes place in the future of the "Enterprise" timeline that was started in "First Contact."

The final episode of "Voyager" depicted Admiral Janeway creating a new timeline where the U.S.S. Voyager got back to Earth 20 years early. This alternate timeline was continued in the movie "Star Trek: Nemesis," as evidenced by Admiral Janeway's appearance in that film (when the Voyager and Captain Janeway would still be trapped in the Delta Quadrant for another 20 years in the "original" timeline).

There are dozens of other episodes over the past 40 years where new timelines are created within the episode, and then the series just continues on from the point of view of that new timeline.

In fact, the last four "Star Trek" movies have each taken place in a different timeline from each other.

"Generations" created a new timeline where the sun did NOT explode, and everyone did NOT die, due to Picard and Kirk changing the timeline.

"First Contact" started in the "Generations" timeline, then passed through the Borg-assimilated-Earth timeline, then created the "Star Trek: Enterprise" timeline where the Borg attacked Earth but were stopped.

"Insurrection" took place in the future of the "Star Trek: Enterprise" timeline created in "First Contact."

"Nemesis" took place in the "Admiral Janeway" timeline that was created in the "Voyager" finale.

And, according to this latest report, "Star Trek XI" will take place in yet another timeline, possibly starting in the "Admiral Janeway" timeline of "Nemesis," then spawning its own alternate timeline through time travel.

My point is that each of the last five "Star Trek" movies has taken place in a different timeline from the one before it. It makes no sense to criticize the "Star Trek XI" writers for this, when it has already been going on in the four previous films (whether the writers were aware of it or not).

Aesthetically, every one of the movies has taken liberties with set design and costumes and makeup, starting with "The Motion Picture," so whether the new Enterprise bridge's glass-and-chrome design is the result of an alternate timeline, or just the filmmakers' creative license, it is nothing that hasn't been done a dozen times before.

There is no "official" "Star Trek" timeline. The series has taken place through dozens of mutually exclusive timelines, so creating just one more timeline in this new movie will not invalidate all 750 past episodes; it will just add one more timeline to the dozens that have already been created and incorporated into the series.

 

[scotthm]

If a new alternate timeline is created when someone changes the past then what is the point of time travel to fix it? because whatever was done in the past wouldn't effect the current timeline, just create a new one. So why bother trying to stop it at all?

If Mr. Orci's theory of time travel is correct, there would be absolutely no point in travelling to the past for the purpose of changing the future, because all possible universes would already exist in parallel, and the one you changed wouldn't even be your own.

Well, maybe Spock doesn't want a criminal from his universe destroying things and killing millions even if it is in another universe.

But according to Mr. Orci's theory all possible universes already exist in parallel. Spock's actions couldn't change that. Those people would still die because another Nero from another parallel universe would still kill them, as he probably has in billions upon billions of parallel timelines.

As long as the movie is good, I could really give a shit about which time line it's occurring in.

Absolutely Right(TM).

As long as the movie is good, it doesn't even have to be about pseudo Star Trek.

---------------

 

[Captain Robert April]

I think what we got here is two forms of time travel being present in Star Trek, the traditional version where you go back on your own timeline, and any changes made tend to have catastrophic results, and the lesser-used one where a change creates a parallel universe. Frankly, I think "Parallels" is being misread in this instance, since Worf really isn't doing much time traveling, just jumping from one timeline to another while still progressing forward at the same rate; he doesn't really do any time travelling until the end. I think a better example would be the opening scene of "In A Mirror, Darkly", where Cochrane blows away that Vulcan, thus creating the Mirror Universe.

As for why Nimoy's there, I think I'll go so far to speculate that while Nero screwed up by shifting into an alternate timeline, the old Spock that shows up used the standard linear approach (after all, it's his timeline that's being screwed with; it's doubtful that our Spock would even be aware of Nero's little scheme).

For that matter, who's to say that when Nero went back to attack the Kelvin, he arrived in the right timeline? That ship really doesn't fit all that well with the design asthetic of the period, so I think it can be argued that Nero's little escapade is just one cosmic fuck-up after another.