Star Trek 2009: Berman's "altered timeline"?

[blockaderunner]

Before I start this thread, I want to preface it by saying that I am NOT a canonista. I know for a fact that Star Trek 2009 (No bloody XI) is starting the Trekverse over for a new generation dispite the lip service TPTB are paying. This is just a little amusing thought experiment and in no way is an attempt to resolve any imagined continuity violations. That being said, here it is.

I remember Rick Berman saying in interviews that ENT was an "altered timeline" stemming from the events of First Contact. What I gathered by the term "altered timeline" is that maybe, MAYBE, the events of FC created another timeline different from the one we know. The original timeline, the one we know, plays out the way we know. With the Ferengi and Borg making their appearance in the 24th century. The new altered timeline, which has yet to e written, probably has the Federation, and as a result, the rest of the quadrant, knowing about the Borg, Ferengi, and other Trekian things much much earlier. Perhaps the reason things look so much different in and sleek in ST'09 is because that it is the altered timeline and and that perhaps the Borg and Ferengi will make their appearance in sequels, if they happen.



Wow. So that's what being a canonista feels like. Okay. Chew on that bit of flotsam.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

I remember this, and several posters saying the next Trek series would be a TOS reboot.

They weren't far off.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I remember Rick Berman saying in interviews that ENT was an "altered timeline" stemming from the events of First Contact.

It wasn't, of course.

FC was part of what was supposed to happen, all along. A classic predestination paradox. There's no way to prove otherwise, at any rate.

 

[gastrof]

Before I start this thread, I want to preface it by saying that I am NOT a canonista. I know for a fact that Star Trek 2009 (No bloody XI) is starting the Trekverse over for a new generation dispite the lip service TPTB are paying. This is just a little amusing thought experiment and in no way is an attempt to resolve any imagined continuity violations. That being said, here it is.

I remember Rick Berman saying in interviews that ENT was an "altered timeline" stemming from the events of First Contact. What I gathered by the term "altered timeline" is that maybe, MAYBE, the events of FC created another timeline different from the one we know. The original timeline, the one we know, plays out the way we know. With the Ferengi and Borg making their appearance in the 24th century. The new altered timeline, which has yet to e written, probably has the Federation, and as a result, the rest of the quadrant, knowing about the Borg, Ferengi, and other Trekian things much much earlier. Perhaps the reason things look so much different in and sleek in ST'09 is because that it is the altered timeline and and that perhaps the Borg and Ferengi will make their appearance in sequels, if they happen.



Wow. So that's what being a canonista feels like. Okay. Chew on that bit of flotsam.

You...

You will pay for this flash of sensibleness.

Mark my words.

 

[cooleddie74]

I remember Rick Berman saying in interviews that ENT was an "altered timeline" stemming from the events of First Contact.

It wasn't, of course.

FC was part of what was supposed to happen, all along. A classic predestination paradox. There's no way to prove otherwise, at any rate.

Agreed. And if there WERE any tiny differences between "original" 2063 and "restored" 2063 they were so insignificant as to not alter any history texts or records.

 

[Ovation]

I remember Rick Berman saying in interviews that ENT was an "altered timeline" stemming from the events of First Contact.

It wasn't, of course.

FC was part of what was supposed to happen, all along. A classic predestination paradox. There's no way to prove otherwise, at any rate.

Agreed. And if there WERE any tiny differences between "original" 2063 and "restored" 2063 they were so insignificant as to not alter any history texts or records.

Actually, after reading several of Trekguide.com's lengthy posts on the subject of time travel in Trek, I am now persuaded there have been multiple time lines generated in the Trek universe--and the First Contact alteration stands out as among the more obvious ones. However, the beauty of dealing with an inconsistent fictional universe (like the Trek universe) is that one is not compelled to accept any single interpretation as correct and is free to enjoy it on whatever terms one wishes. Isn't it great?

 

[Qonos]

It wasn't, of course.

FC was part of what was supposed to happen, all along. A classic predestination paradox. There's no way to prove otherwise, at any rate.

Agreed. And if there WERE any tiny differences between "original" 2063 and "restored" 2063 they were so insignificant as to not alter any history texts or records.

Actually, after reading several of Trekguide.com's lengthy posts on the subject of time travel in Trek, I am now persuaded there have been multiple time lines generated in the Trek universe--and the First Contact alteration stands out as among the more obvious ones. However, the beauty of dealing with an inconsistent fictional universe (like the Trek universe) is that one is not compelled to accept any single interpretation as correct and is free to enjoy it on whatever terms one wishes. Isn't it great?

no there is only one true path.......

 

[mirandafave]

Did the ENT episode arc ['A Mirror Darkly'??] about the mirror universe not show that the altered timeline in fact resulted in the mirror universe rather than a Berman v Abram timelines?

 

[Ovation]

Did the ENT episode arc ['A Mirror Darkly'??] about the mirror universe not show that the altered timeline in fact resulted in the mirror universe rather than a Berman v Abram timelines?

That's not how I read it. I interpreted it as the already "evil" nature of humans in the mirror universe manifesting itself when the Vulcans land--no Borg influence is necessary, nor is there any need for their to have been a presence by Picard (in fact, there could not have been, as by the 24th century in the mirror universe, as per DS9, the empire has fallen and there is no "Enterprise-E" nor is there a Captain Picard).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ And if the opening credits to IAMD are any indication, the Terran Empire existed at least during World War II (the marching troops with the Empire logo superimposed). Also, Mirror Archer said that the Empire had existed for 'centuries'.

As for multiple timelines in general: I'm still not convinced. As far as I'm concerned, each and every instance of Trek timetravel is predestined: they were always supposed to happen, and all resolved themselves into the same timeline we're familiar with. Except *maybe* for Trek XI, although it's still too early to tell.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

FC was part of what was supposed to happen, all along. A classic predestination paradox. There's no way to prove otherwise, at any rate.

Agreed. And if there WERE any tiny differences between "original" 2063 and "restored" 2063 they were so insignificant as to not alter any history texts or records.

Well, I think the crashed Borg sphere showing up in the Arctic 100 years later would have resulted in some significant historical records. In a "Voyager" episode, Seven of Nine even mentioned that the Borg were present for Cochrane's first warp flight. The events in "Voyager" and "Enterprise" were clearly following the Borg's intervention in history in "Star Trek: First Contact."

(A predestination paradox is a loop of time where characters have no free will to change the past. "Star Trek: First Contact" showed the Borg going back in time to change the past, and succeding. The Enterprise-D was shifted into the new future they created, with an assimilated Earth, and the crew chose to go back and change history again. But it was two different choices to change the past, made by characters with free will who knew the consequences of their actions, not characters trapped in a time loop as depicted in "Time's Arrow.")

I think "Star Trek: First Contact" and "The City on the Edge of Forever" were more like "Back to the Future" -- Marty "restored" his original timeline; he had a new truck and a successful father, but otherwise his future was "almost" the same. But as someone pointed out, there's not enough evidence one way or the other, so this becomes a creation-versus-evolution "Prove it!" type of debate. That's why "First Contact" is a bad example when discussing either alternate timelines or predestination paradoxes in "Star Trek" -- there are clearer examples of both.

^ And if the opening credits to IAMD are any indication, the Terran Empire existed at least during World War II (the marching troops with the Empire logo superimposed). Also, Mirror Archer said that the Empire had existed for 'centuries'.

And the opening credits of "In a Mirror, Darkly" showed a Mirror-Neil Armstrong planting the Terran Empire flag on the Moon. I think the implication of all the Mirror Universe stories was that the Mirror Universe has always existed along side the Federation Universe -- it was never "created" by anything.

As for multiple timelines in general: I'm still not convinced. As far as I'm concerned, each and every instance of Trek timetravel is predestined: they were always supposed to happen, and all resolved themselves into the same timeline we're familiar with. Except *maybe* for Trek XI, although it's still too early to tell.

Well, all "Star Trek" episodes are "supposed" to happen, because the writers make them happen. Spock's brain was "supposed" to be stolen, then re-implanted, because that's what the "Spock's Brain" script said.

But when we saw the Voyager crew get home after 20 years in the Delta Quadrant, but Admiral Janeway went back in time and helped her younger self get back to Earth immediately in "Endgame," that wasn't predestined -- that was one person deciding to change her own past, and then executing that decision.

And when Lt. Yar went back in time on the Enterprise-C to change her own past, that was also a personal choice to create a new timeline. Those characters weren't trapped in a time loop to re-play the same events, like in "Time's Arrow" -- they knew their own past, then created a new timeline that was DIFFERENT from their own past; that is the OPPOSITE of predestination.

(If you argue that Janeway and Yar were "predestined" to go back in time and create a new timeline, then any changes that Nero and Spock make in "Star Trek XI" are also "predestined," just like all the alternate timelines depicted in "Parallels" were "predestined." But if all alternate timelines are "predestined," then the words "predestined" and "alternate" become meaningless.)

Don't mistake the writers' gimmick of a Reset Button™ with a predestination paradox. What was "meant to be" within the context of a fictional universe is not the same as what was "meant to be" when the writer is making up a time-travel-paradox-of-the-week in the Paramount offices, or what is "meant to be" in the sense of everything that God or Fate allows in "real" life (i.e., Hitler's rise to power and the Holocaust were "meant to be," bacause God allowed them happen). Those are three separate philosophical issues.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I remember Rick Berman saying in interviews that ENT was an "altered timeline" stemming from the events of First Contact.

It wasn't, of course.

FC was part of what was supposed to happen, all along. A classic predestination paradox. There's no way to prove otherwise, at any rate.

I agree. The end of "Regeneration" established that the Borg drones had managed to send a signal that would reach the Delta Quadrant by the 24th century and it was also strongly implied that it was this signal why the Borg cube in "Q Who?" was on its way to the Alpha Quadrant (ah, and there were also those attacks on Federation/Romulan outposts in "The Neutral Zone").

 

[Klingonballs]

the more leftover for the res of us!

 

[Flake]

The way I see it, Spock comes back from the TNG era and the timeline as we know it from TNG onwards, everything post 1987 (Except TFF and TUC).

So in TNG, unbeknownst (sp?) to Picard and Co, 100 years before the E-D launched Spock travelled to the past with Nero in the 25th Century and changed the past from the original 1966-1991 TOS....

So, stick with me here guys, Generations Kirk is different to previous Kirks because this is the Kirk from Picards timeline, this is the Kirk that was spawned by Neros interferance. The Kirk from the original timeline was last seen in TUC, and is still alive - this is the Kirk without interference from Nero, and the Kirk that Picard never met.

This is based on the fact that Spock comes back from the TNG era.

Am I making any sense?

I hate temporal mechanics.

 

[Falcor5]

The way I see it, Spock comes back from the TNG era and the timeline as we know it from TNG onwards, everything post 1987 (Except TFF and TUC).

So in TNG, unbeknownst (sp?) to Picard and Co, 100 years before the E-D launched Spock travelled to the past with Nero in the 25th Century and changed the past from the original 1966-1991 TOS....

So, stick with me here guys, Generations Kirk is different to previous Kirks because this is the Kirk from Picards timeline, this is the Kirk that was spawned by Neros interferance. The Kirk from the original timeline was last seen in TUC, and is still alive - this is the Kirk without interference from Nero, and the Kirk that Picard never met.

This is based on the fact that Spock comes back from the TNG era.

Am I making any sense?

I hate temporal mechanics.

I am so confused my head is going to explode Its an interesting theory though.

 

[Franklin]

The way I see it, Spock comes back from the TNG era and the timeline as we know it from TNG onwards, everything post 1987 (Except TFF and TUC).

So in TNG, unbeknownst (sp?) to Picard and Co, 100 years before the E-D launched Spock travelled to the past with Nero in the 25th Century and changed the past from the original 1966-1991 TOS....

So, stick with me here guys, Generations Kirk is different to previous Kirks because this is the Kirk from Picards timeline, this is the Kirk that was spawned by Neros interferance. The Kirk from the original timeline was last seen in TUC, and is still alive - this is the Kirk without interference from Nero, and the Kirk that Picard never met.

This is based on the fact that Spock comes back from the TNG era.

Am I making any sense?

I hate temporal mechanics.

I am so confused my head is going to explode Its an interesting theory though.

It makes very good sense and I like it. But I bet Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams would laugh their asses off over how fans are taking an interest in explaining the timeline questions. I bet they didn't give it half as much thought.

I keep thinking the timelines and reconciling them are secondary to the overall story. If they (Orci et al) were following quantum theories of time travel, nothing really can be reconciled or changed within a timeline. Nero (and Spock, for that matter) merely go on making new universes.
So, there will always be universes where Kirk doesn't captain the Enterprise and Vulcan is destroyed. You can't save them all. So, why is this one important? That's the real question, to me.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The way I see it, Spock comes back from the TNG era and the timeline as we know it from TNG onwards, everything post 1987 (Except TFF and TUC).

So in TNG, unbeknownst (sp?) to Picard and Co, 100 years before the E-D launched Spock travelled to the past with Nero in the 25th Century and changed the past from the original 1966-1991 TOS....

So, stick with me here guys, Generations Kirk is different to previous Kirks because this is the Kirk from Picards timeline, this is the Kirk that was spawned by Neros interferance. The Kirk from the original timeline was last seen in TUC, and is still alive - this is the Kirk without interference from Nero, and the Kirk that Picard never met.

This is based on the fact that Spock comes back from the TNG era.

Am I making any sense?

I hate temporal mechanics.

Spock comes from a point in the TNG era that is much later than Generations. In fact, it's post-Nemesis.

So the Kirk we see in Generations is not the result of any time travel.

 

[Flake]

I have re-read my post and confused myself... hmmz

Yes the theory is probably wrong and the more I think about it the more confused I get.

 

[Flake]

In Terminator Skynet go to the past to kill John Connor.

If the Terminator is successful John Connor will have never existed in the future and they would have never needed to send a robot back in the first place, so how did they send one back unless they are always doomed to failure and there is no point?

Time travel sucks.

 

[Ovation]

In Terminator Skynet go to the past to kill John Connor.

If the Terminator is successful John Connor will have never existed in the future and they would have never needed to send a robot back in the first place, so how did they send one back unless they are always doomed to failure and there is no point?

Time travel sucks.

It poses potential ethical problems as well. Imagine you had a spouse and children and were swept back in time just far enough back to not live long enough to "catch up" with your present AND have no way "back to the future". Do you "stay out of the way" as much as possible, to avoid tampering with the future and preventing your meeting your spouse and the subsequent children? (we'll leave aside the divergent universes and the problem of the conservation of mass and energy for the moment) Do you let someone die when you could save them with CPR in order to keep the timeline "pure"? Do you kill yourself to avoid contaminating the timeline? Do you use your knowledge of the future to become wealthy and leave it to your family? Do you stay quiet when you could prevent not just one death but hundreds, thousands or maybe more?

While it can be fun to consider the ramifications of time travel in various permutations, I've come to the conclusion that, unless strictly defined parameters are established (and clearly) for both the characters and the audience, time travel stories should be approached with a "check your brain at the door" attitude and an openness to having fun with it. Otherwise, you could give yourself brain cramps trying to unravel everything. YMMV