Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the same...
- Thread starter MadBaggins
- Start date
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
Christ on a cracker...
Christ on a cracker...
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
If they open a hatch on an alien spacecraft, encounter a portly gentleman with long curly hair with a voice coming from behind him asking "What do ya see up there, Jumbotron?" We'll know they are really in an alternate universe.
They're all different people to some degree. How much different depends on how events during and prior to their lives were effected by the Kelvins encounter with Nero compaired to the Kelvins mission in the prime universe.
Science Officer Thelin appears not to appear in this alternate timeline.
If they open a hatch on an alien spacecraft, encounter a portly gentleman with long curly hair with a voice coming from behind him asking "What do ya see up there, Jumbotron?" We'll know they are really in an alternate universe.
They're all different people to some degree. How much different depends on how events during and prior to their lives were effected by the Kelvins encounter with Nero compaired to the Kelvins mission in the prime universe.
Science Officer Thelin appears not to appear in this alternate timeline.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
If I wrote a story about Joe and Frank accidentally traveling back to 1963 and, somehow, prevented the assassination of JFK, it got made into a movie (with scenes that clearly show the pre-assassination timeline still exists because Joe and Frank traveled separately) where events proceed from 1963 in a different fashion because Kennedy lived to run for re-election AND, when directly questioned about it, I explicitly state that in MY story, the mechanism of time travel is DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to have someone arrive, do something to alter the pivotal moment (the details are unimportant), thus creating an alternate timeline--you would still say "I don't buy it"? Really?
It boggles my mind that people still dispute this point. The filmmakers have explicitly stated, on more than one occasion, that up to the Narada's arrival in 2233, it IS "the exact same universe".
If I wrote a story about Joe and Frank accidentally traveling back to 1963 and, somehow, prevented the assassination of JFK, it got made into a movie (with scenes that clearly show the pre-assassination timeline still exists because Joe and Frank traveled separately) where events proceed from 1963 in a different fashion because Kennedy lived to run for re-election AND, when directly questioned about it, I explicitly state that in MY story, the mechanism of time travel is DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to have someone arrive, do something to alter the pivotal moment (the details are unimportant), thus creating an alternate timeline--you would still say "I don't buy it"? Really?
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
That's usually the first step to realizing it is you.
Figure THAT out!
As far as this thread goes...I...don't know. I happen to subscribe to the alternate universe theory, but this is just...damn ridiculous.
That's usually the first step to realizing it is you.
Figure THAT out!
As far as this thread goes...I...don't know. I happen to subscribe to the alternate universe theory, but this is just...damn ridiculous.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
Another point against it being the same universe is how advanced the Kelvin looks. To be authentic it should look EXACTLY like the bridge of the original Enterprise from the sixites, but instead it looks just as advanced and space-age as the Enterprise does. You can explain the Enterprise being advanced because of the Kelvin being destroyed changing the timeline, but you CAN'T explain the Kelvin being more advanced because the Kelvin was destroyed because this is BEFORE the Kelvin was destroyed. It doesn't make any sense.
Also there's the matter of the Enteprise being ten times as large. What, did lots of giants join Starfleet after the Kelvin was destroyed so they had to make the Enterprise super big? SEEMS UNLIKELY.
But even if it is the same universe I still thinkg they could be different people. There is NO explicit proof that they are the same Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov and Pike. NONE.
Another point against it being the same universe is how advanced the Kelvin looks. To be authentic it should look EXACTLY like the bridge of the original Enterprise from the sixites, but instead it looks just as advanced and space-age as the Enterprise does. You can explain the Enterprise being advanced because of the Kelvin being destroyed changing the timeline, but you CAN'T explain the Kelvin being more advanced because the Kelvin was destroyed because this is BEFORE the Kelvin was destroyed. It doesn't make any sense.
Also there's the matter of the Enteprise being ten times as large. What, did lots of giants join Starfleet after the Kelvin was destroyed so they had to make the Enterprise super big? SEEMS UNLIKELY.
But even if it is the same universe I still thinkg they could be different people. There is NO explicit proof that they are the same Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov and Pike. NONE.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
Yes, there is. Old Spock recognizing both Kirk and Scotty.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
Hello everyone, I'm OldestRedShirtEver and I'm a Trekaholic. . .
Hello everyone, I'm OldestRedShirtEver and I'm a Trekaholic. . .
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
Which is why I didn't include KIRK on that list. As for Scotty, I'm not sure he recognized him. He said "fascinating, you are Monty Scotty..." but it could have been meant as a question and Nimoy delivered the line wrong due to his dentures. Maybe the movie Scotty just let Spock think it was the same Scotty. Original Scotty NEVER mentioned being sent to an ice planet for killing Porthos and that seems quite out of character for him to do so anyway.
Which is why I didn't include KIRK on that list. As for Scotty, I'm not sure he recognized him. He said "fascinating, you are Monty Scotty..." but it could have been meant as a question and Nimoy delivered the line wrong due to his dentures. Maybe the movie Scotty just let Spock think it was the same Scotty. Original Scotty NEVER mentioned being sent to an ice planet for killing Porthos and that seems quite out of character for him to do so anyway.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
No one is obligated to agree with what the author of any work says if they feel differently about it.
And this changes my opinion...how? I could care less about what the filmmakers have explicitly stated if I don't agree with them.
Yes, really. If you do a poor job of convincing me, then I won't buy your story either.
No one is obligated to agree with what the author of any work says if they feel differently about it.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
I think you were watching another movie.
I think you were watching another movie.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
So, if I follow your reasoning, Kirk is the same, but not the others?
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
YES Kirk is the same because I think there can only be one Captain Kirk and we already know he has a dad called George and lives in Iowa and Old SPock would be able to tell he was the same when he mind melded. But he DIDN'T mind meld with anyone else!
I can't remember the exact line Squiffy, I'm not Commander Data.
YES Kirk is the same because I think there can only be one Captain Kirk and we already know he has a dad called George and lives in Iowa and Old SPock would be able to tell he was the same when he mind melded. But he DIDN'T mind meld with anyone else!
I can't remember the exact line Squiffy, I'm not Commander Data.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
I give up.
Ok, then Spock just HAPPENS to be just ANOTHER half-Human/Vulcan, son of ANOTHER Ambassador Sarek, and the same Kirk just figured out he might has well join this other crew since they had all the same names and it would be easy to remember?YES Kirk is the same because I think there can only be one Captain Kirk and we already know he has a dad called George and lives in Iowa and Old SPock would be able to tell he was the same when he mind melded. But he DIDN'T mind meld with anyone else!
I can't remember the exact line Squiffy, I'm not Commander Data.
I give up.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
It helps to think about the Mirror Universe and the TNG episode "Parallels", IMO...
It helps to think about the Mirror Universe and the TNG episode "Parallels", IMO...
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
It's his name. That's all you have to remember. It's not like you're being asked to recite the collected works of Lord Byron.YES Kirk is the same because I think there can only be one Captain Kirk and we already know he has a dad called George and lives in Iowa and Old SPock would be able to tell he was the same when he mind melded. But he DIDN'T mind meld with anyone else!
I can't remember the exact line Squiffy, I'm not Commander Data.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
Like so many before you and many more to come.
Like so many before you and many more to come.
Although that might be very amusing.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
Anyone have some Tylenol?
Anyone have some Tylenol?
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
I'm out of breath for laughing. The recent spree of MadBaggins' thread are better than nitrous oxide.
I'm out of breath for laughing. The recent spree of MadBaggins' thread are better than nitrous oxide.
Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam
One can argue the authors did not do a good job of clearly illustrating their intent--one cannot correctly argue that they did not intend to do what they say they intended without some evidence they were lying.
No one is obligated to agree with reality either. It does not make them any less wrong.
One can argue the authors did not do a good job of clearly illustrating their intent--one cannot correctly argue that they did not intend to do what they say they intended without some evidence they were lying.
Similar threads
