No. The fans don't do anything of the kind--at least not for anyone but themselves individually. Sorry.
Timelines, reality,star trek, canon, and the Truth!
- Thread starter hal9500
- Start date
- Status
ovation then why dont you go to school become a director and make us the star trek movie we all want or the one you want. 
Someone was actually smart enough to ask the one person who has to know everything about all this time travel stuff - the Doctor.
He had this to say:
http://community.livejournal.com/doctorwho/4718591.html#cutid1
He had this to say:
http://community.livejournal.com/doctorwho/4718591.html#cutid1
ovation then why dont you go to school become a director and make us the star trek movie we all want or the one you want.
The audience gets to decide what it likes or doesn't like (to whatever degree of intensity they wish). That's it. That is the entire sum of the "rights" of the audience. The creators of any art form owe NOTHING to the audience except the work in question. They don't "owe" them satisfaction. The audience is not "entitled" to satisfaction. Nor do they own the product.
I don't really care if individuals choose to ignore what the creators say (see the numerous interviews where the authors EXPLICITLY state that they've applied a particular theory to explain the time travel sequences in the film and their effects--it's their story, they get to decide). I don't care if people choose to engage in cognitive dissonance by ignoring the facts. What I do care about, and what I find extremely irritating (and what often grows out of attitudes like "Abrams can say what he want's about altered time lines and so on, but he's wrong. In the end it's the fans that write the history.") is the implication that some fans can define "real Trek" (or "real Rolling Stones music" or "real Superman stories" or "real..."--well, you get the idea) for anyone other than themselves as individuals. I'm not saying that this poster (JBElliott) is necessarily doing this, but far too many "real fans" are guilty of this and their assertions are often accompanied by statements like that of JBElliott.
I stand by my statement--individual fans can define (or redefine) any element of Trek (or anything else) they wish, FOR THEMSELVES AS INDIVIDUALS. They don't get to define "Trek" (or other things) for anyone else UNLESS they are part of the creative team. That is why Abrams' is NOT wrong in the sense JBElliott says. He gets to make the determination for others--not the audience.
Because that was not the intent of the producers at the time. Once something was altered and fixed the timeline was back on track. An alternate timeline was not created, no matter what theory the producers of the new film have gone with. Think about it. Why have the Time Cops in DS9 fix and catalog time discrepencies if a new alternate universe was created instead??? Why would they go to the trouble. Watch the episode with Sisko in DS9.
Sadly now we are going to have the uberfans of this new film constantly state, that we have watched at least 4 different picards, a couple of siskos and janeways and at least 2 kirks these last 40 years. Im not buying it.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Yeah, that's where this little thing called "comprehensive reading" comes into play - not to mention reading the title of the thread. We're all talking about time travel here. The whole discussion was about time travel, and some people claimed that time travel wasn't handled the same every time.
1. The Pre-destination Paradox and the altered timelines are not inconsistent. The exact same temporal mechanics can produce a pre-destination paradox, and the next moment change the whole timeline. This time travel instance simply produced a pre-destination paradox. It also depends on where the time travel originated; in the past, or the future.
2. Is the way Star Trek shows all Trek to be. You can change the timeline - which you could unchange if you knew how. However, there is no new, or alternate timeline - or better, reality. You did not jump into another reality as there is a new timeline, you simply changed the timeline of this reality/universe.
3. Which is the exact same thing as number 2. You can change your timeline, which includes erasing your own time. Also the depiction of "All good things" in that post, is just plain wrong. Similarly, is Voyager's "Year of Hell". The Krenim timeship was specifically designed to change time; to implode an event and erase it, and all consequences from the timeline, while temporal shields protect the ship from such events. When Voyager rammed into the ship; the time ship was just about to fire, and thus used its weapon/tool on itself. Also, no time travel was head in Voyager's episode at all.
4. Once again we have the problem that number 3, 2, and 4 are somehow different. They are not. They are the exact same thing. You go back in time, and you can change the timeline, as every time travel story has shown. That there are mechanisms to allow a ship or person to be protected from such changes in the timeline, to follow after the inititial time travel event, so you can rectify it - aka CHANGE the timeline back - has no bearing on the original time trave mechanism. The same fundamental time travel scenario/mechanism governs all 3 points, there is no conflict, or inconsistancy anywhere.
5. Is just idiotic, as to claiming somehow being different. Indeed, the whole Spock to the past thing is of no consequence. There was nothing stopping Spock from going back to a less early time where he could send messages out to the Federation and thus change the past - he just didn't, he was sent to an ice age. A time travel scenario in Trek where one MUST go to a place where you cannot influence your future was simply never shown in Star Trek ever.
In conclusion; time travel is not inconsistantly shown in Trek at all, as I said. All scenarios follow the exact same mechanism - except for the new movie.
You're really trying hard to prove that you're right and everyone else is wrong. The shear length of your posts are ridiculous. You are just absolutely set that your theories are correct. How could you possibly know what is and what isn't correct? Ever heard of an open mind??
Yesterday's Enterprise displayed THREE separate timelines. The one prior to encountering the rift. The "war timeline". The timeline where Yar is captured in the past and eventually gives birth to Sela.
City on the Edge of Forever shows what you describe--a timeline that is altered and then fixed by going back to the point of divergence. These two episodes show two quiet different types of "time travel" and they are not consistent.
City on the Edge of Forever shows what you describe--a timeline that is altered and then fixed by going back to the point of divergence. These two episodes show two quiet different types of "time travel" and they are not consistent.
As long as Will Riker gets erased from existence, I have no problem with this movie or the changes to the timeline.
Ouch.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
It's called logic, deductive reasoning, and more such lovely buzzwords the human race used to get from a bunch of apes swinging stick around, to being able to build computers and an internet.
I have an open mind. However, there's a massive difference between having an open mind, and a non-functioning mind incapable of reasoning and applying logic to claims. If a claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny, it is shown to be false. To not say so, and simply accept a false claim because you don't want to appear "closed-minded" to some people who can't notice the difference, is not being open-minded, it's being non-minded.
Wrong, they are exactly the same. Timeline can be changed, timeline got changed, timeline got changed again. No jump to an alternate reality/universe has been had. Two exactly the same time travel scenarios and 100% consistent.
And no, there's is absolutely no certainty about whether there are three or two timelines shown. There's a very good possibility that the E-C always went to the future, always took back Yar, and thus Sela was always born and was already alive in the peace timeline. It all depends on where the time rift originated, in the future, or the past.
Ok, since you claim to know how all this is supposed to work I'll ask you something I've been thinking about and I want to know what you think. Assuming the black hole never collapses in the prime universe, could that possibly explain how both realities exist at the same time? Or would the timeline change around the black hole no matter what?
I'm with you on that. I couldn't stand him. I kept hoping for Worf to shove that damn trombone up his ass.
3d master you sound like spock....i think you sit in your mothers basement with pointy ears and in your tos science shirt 
oh wait that is me heheh...jk but foreal are you a rocket scientist if so do you work for nasa? jw cause you seem to know alot about space and time travel...*SLAPS HEAD* OH WAIT I GET IT NOW THE REASON WHY YOU ARE SO SMART AND KNOW ALL ABOUT TIME TRAVEL IS.............................................CAUSE YOUR FROM THE FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there is no pure logic behind time travel because as far as we know its not capable....
oh wait that is me heheh...jk but foreal are you a rocket scientist if so do you work for nasa? jw cause you seem to know alot about space and time travel...*SLAPS HEAD* OH WAIT I GET IT NOW THE REASON WHY YOU ARE SO SMART AND KNOW ALL ABOUT TIME TRAVEL IS.............................................CAUSE YOUR FROM THE FUTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there is no pure logic behind time travel because as far as we know its not capable....
I'm not sure what you're getting upset about. There have been 11 "Star Trek" films now, some better than others. This is certainly not the worst of all the Trek films.
In my opinion, it was "Star Trek: Insurrection" that "erased" everything. After all the excitement generated by the action-packed time-travel story in "Star Trek: First Contact," the throwback Roddenberry-style moral-dilemma plot of "Insurrection" pretty much killed all enthusiasm for the "Trek" movie franchise, as indicated by ticket sales for the following film.
If you are talking about the time travel in this new movie literally "erasing" all the past stories, then you are factually wrong and were not paying attention to the movie.
As I pointed out before, Ambassador Spock and his timeline STILL EXISTED AFTER NERO WENT BACK through the black hole. Picard and Riker and Worf and everyone else are still there. In fact, the timeline depicted in this new movie may exist entirely inside that black hole that Nero and Spock entered, like the pocket universe that trapped Dr. Crusher in TNG's "Remember Me."
New universes and timelines are depicted all the time in "Star Trek." Numerous timelines have been "erased." You don't have to like this movie, but it certainly isn't doing anything that a dozen episodes haven't already done.
As I said, "Star Trek: Insurrection" was a mostly cerebral and intellectual endeavor, with a lot of moralizing and speeches that would make Roddenberry proud, but in the absence of the action and excitement that made "Wrath of Khan," "First Contact," and this new film hits with the fans, "Insurrection's" moral/intellectual/sentimental storyline just fell flat.
As a one-hour TV episode, "Insurrection" would have been fine as an intellectual, cerebral, moral sci-fi tale. But if you have the goal of making 100 million dollars, then it is that movie that killed the franchise.
This new film is faithful to the action-packed tradition of "Khan," "First Contact," and my favorite of the films, "The Undiscovered Country."
If you don't like a movie, that's your personal prerogative. But if other fans (many of whom are older than you) don't share your personal taste in movies, don't accuse them of being non-intellectual teenagers.
There's something in Trek's 736 episodes to appeal to everyone. You should view the Trek Universe in its entirety as a series, not judge it by the latest episode. It is alive and well, and nobody has "killed" or "erased" it.
Umm... doesn't a time rift, by definition, have to originate simultaneously in both the future and the past?
- Status
Similar threads
