How can the original timeline still exist?
- Thread starter EJA
- Start date
Not going to happen. That would defeat the whole point of the new movie, which was to create a new timeline in which we don't already know how the characters' futures are going to play out.
It's a whole new ballgame. The old rules don't apply anymore.
Temporal mechanics give nu-Kirk a bellyache, and he got a beauty right now.I think this movie needed a line about temporal mechanics giving someone a headache. That way, it doesn't matter if we don't understand it because neither do the characters!
Not that it seriously matters, but what I'd like to know is this: If the Hobus supernova was a natural event that was going to either (1) go off and gradually destroy the civilizations of the Milky Way or (2) be shut down via red matter in a chain of events leading to the end of that timeline, where did the several future eras we saw in Enterprise and Voyager come from? They were never going to have a chance to occur...
ETA: Which I guess means the Prime timeline does continue in parallel with the new one. Unless the Hobus supernova is itself an artificial change from what "originally" happened, wrought by parties unknown farther down the timeline. Again, not that it matters as far as new productions are concerned.
ETA: Which I guess means the Prime timeline does continue in parallel with the new one. Unless the Hobus supernova is itself an artificial change from what "originally" happened, wrought by parties unknown farther down the timeline. Again, not that it matters as far as new productions are concerned.
The original timeline can't exist. It was wiped out from all existence and never happened.
If you can't enjoy fictional stories because now they didn't "really happen" then you have issues. The writers said all that guff about the old timeline still existing just to appease Trekkies who they knew would come unhinged if the previous Treks 'didn't happen' Its clear in the movie that history was changed.
If you can't enjoy fictional stories because now they didn't "really happen" then you have issues. The writers said all that guff about the old timeline still existing just to appease Trekkies who they knew would come unhinged if the previous Treks 'didn't happen' Its clear in the movie that history was changed.
It's a new reality, not a new timeline.
There are an infinite number of realities, each with its own timeline. Time travel in Star Trek plays around just in one reality, when they're doing the reset-the-timeline schitck (which they usually are).
It's not the usual thing for them to drag in another reality, which may confuse people if they try to fit what's happened into the "usual" way of doing business.
Compounding the confusion: Star Trek has never been particularly consistent in how they handle time travel.
No no no no NOOOOO!
The number of realities is infinte. There is plenty of room for Original Trek, Abrams Trek, Temis Trek (where Spock and Kirk spend all their time enacting the more intriguing slash fanfic scenarios) and every conceivable Trek inbetween.
The notion of infinite parallel realities is a perfectly respectable scientific theory and fair game for any sci fi show. Trek has certainly dabbled in much worse science than that.
There are an infinite number of realities, each with its own timeline. Time travel in Star Trek plays around just in one reality, when they're doing the reset-the-timeline schitck (which they usually are).
It's not the usual thing for them to drag in another reality, which may confuse people if they try to fit what's happened into the "usual" way of doing business.
Compounding the confusion: Star Trek has never been particularly consistent in how they handle time travel.
No no no no NOOOOO!
The number of realities is infinte. There is plenty of room for Original Trek, Abrams Trek, Temis Trek (where Spock and Kirk spend all their time enacting the more intriguing slash fanfic scenarios) and every conceivable Trek inbetween.
The notion of infinite parallel realities is a perfectly respectable scientific theory and fair game for any sci fi show. Trek has certainly dabbled in much worse science than that.
Sigh... you silly mortals and your linear time delusions!
It's a little over two hundred years between Broken Bow and the SpockPrime time travel adventure. Let's say, the year 229 AB in a fictional Trek callendar. When Spock Prime and Nero arrive in the past, they introduce 229 years worth of causal elements to this universe... so what year is it now in the new universe? Believe it or not, it's STILL 229 AB, despite the fact that until the moment the Narada arrived it was actually 75 AB.
Basically the chain of causality that begins in the Prime Universe continues through the new universe. In other words, since SpockPrime doesn't immediately cease to exist when Vulcan is destroyed, HIS past--and therefore the timeline from which he originated--must still exist, and therefore has the same causal timeline. Since in this universe time travel is possible, it is also possible for Spock Prime to travel back to a point in his past--and therefore, in the prime universe--if and only if he travels along the exact same world line he used to get into the new universe in the first place. In other words, if he takes a ship and time-travels back to 2258 and dives into the black hole at the exact moment the Jellyfish arrives, it will probably deposit him in the Prime Universe at the exact moment he left. Surely it'll involve alot of calculations, though, variables Spock has to program from memory. Like the mass of the vessel through the time continuum and the probable location of humpback whales...
Anyway, the end answer is yes, the Prime Universe DOES still exist, because things that came from the Prime Universe still exist and can be considered physical protrusions of one universe into another. If you trace the position of those objects using time as a fourth dimension, you follow a path straight to the Prime Universe anyway; if the path doesn't lead anywhere, then Spock Prime and the Narada should have winked out of existence the moment they arrived.
It's a little over two hundred years between Broken Bow and the SpockPrime time travel adventure. Let's say, the year 229 AB in a fictional Trek callendar. When Spock Prime and Nero arrive in the past, they introduce 229 years worth of causal elements to this universe... so what year is it now in the new universe? Believe it or not, it's STILL 229 AB, despite the fact that until the moment the Narada arrived it was actually 75 AB.
Basically the chain of causality that begins in the Prime Universe continues through the new universe. In other words, since SpockPrime doesn't immediately cease to exist when Vulcan is destroyed, HIS past--and therefore the timeline from which he originated--must still exist, and therefore has the same causal timeline. Since in this universe time travel is possible, it is also possible for Spock Prime to travel back to a point in his past--and therefore, in the prime universe--if and only if he travels along the exact same world line he used to get into the new universe in the first place. In other words, if he takes a ship and time-travels back to 2258 and dives into the black hole at the exact moment the Jellyfish arrives, it will probably deposit him in the Prime Universe at the exact moment he left. Surely it'll involve alot of calculations, though, variables Spock has to program from memory. Like the mass of the vessel through the time continuum and the probable location of humpback whales...
Anyway, the end answer is yes, the Prime Universe DOES still exist, because things that came from the Prime Universe still exist and can be considered physical protrusions of one universe into another. If you trace the position of those objects using time as a fourth dimension, you follow a path straight to the Prime Universe anyway; if the path doesn't lead anywhere, then Spock Prime and the Narada should have winked out of existence the moment they arrived.
I wonder which version of the original timeline the OP means. There's the one where the Enterprise is a starship under the authority of UESPA, and there's the version in which Enterprise is a Starfleet starship. There's a version in which there were only 12 Constitution class starships, and there are other versions that indicate that there were a lot more than that. The comics have depicted a version of the original timeline in which Captain Kirk and company fight off their mirror universe counterparts before taking command of Excelsior at some point between The Search For Spock and The Voyage Home. There a version of the original timeline in the novels which hint that there was a second 5 year mission between the end of the first 5 year mission and the first Star Trek movie.
Then again, someone has pointed out that these are all just fiction. It seems to me that the happiest group of fans are the ones who post on Doctor Who forums, because they know there is no point in getting fussed about the consistency of the show's continuity because it may be changing everytime the Doctor lands somewhere and gets involved with the locals. The Star Wars fans were kind of happy for a while, until the new Clone Wars series started messing with what had already been "established" in previous books and comics. I've seen Star Wars and Star Trek fans proclaim their pride in their franchise of choice on the grounds that it is internally consistent. This is a pathway towards unhappiness.
An author a few years ago opened a Doctor Who novel thusly: "Every word of fiction is true." Arguably, that's not necessarily true, but it could be. I look at it this way, any work of fiction can be true for the person enjoying it, in the moment that they are experiencing it. I've seen the new Star Trek movie, and in the days and months following that, I've watched episodes of the old series, and enjoyed them on their individual merits. I've enjoyed reading through the old Marvel Star Wars comics, and believe me there is a very strange version of Jabba the Hut in those stories. And because I hate all of the stupid retconning to get around perceived awkwardness, I read them, and take them at face value in the moment. Within the confines of that comic series, Jabba is a humanoid walrus. Believe me.
Does anyone complain about how there are vastly different versions of continuity for G.I. Joe in it's original marvel comic run, compared to the animated series, or the new movie (which I found to be a drastic departure, but no one else cares, do they, so why should I?) What about Transformers? There's some pretty big differences going on there, between comics, animated series, and the new live action movies. How many times has the origin of Superman get retold in just the comics alone? There are several additional versions of his origin between all the TV shows, and the movie series. These franchises are reinvigorated by being reimagined, retooled, rebooted, and told anew.
Some people have complained that the writers of the new Star Trek shouldn't have even bothered with showing how the old universe still exists in relationship to a potential new version of history. I actually think this would have been a worthwhile way of doing it, but I confess I do like the time travel antics, and Nero was interesting enough as a villain, but just as interesting as an adversarial temporal incursion. The only thing that matters is giving writers room to take the original Star Trek crew in new and potentially more meaningful directions. I'm not saying the old crew weren't taken in meaningful directions, they were. But now there is the potential to take things further along than they ever could be.
The point is about maximizing the potential of the characters and situations. A writer just can't be expected to memorize all the stuff that is contained in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, just so they can get all the details right! It's great stuff if it inspires a writer to think up a new story idea, but it's junk if it hinders the storytelling process because the details aren't exactly right.
Regardless of whether we follow on the logic the new movie graciously offers us for believing the old universe still exists, think about it: when your watching an old episode, at that very moment, doesn't it exist for you, in a sense? We know that it's fiction, but when we're in the moment it kind of exists, doesn't it? And then you can go back to the new movie, loath the possibility that it just overwrote the old universe, then go back and watch an old episode and once more, be in the moment.
This is suppose to be fun! When your watching or reading something, let yourself believe in it! When your not watching it, ponder on discontinuities, and, if it's fun, try and come up with your own explanation for inconsistencies. And if there's no reconciling it, set it aside and remind yourself that it's all fiction. And then let yourself be absorbed by the story when you read or watch it the next time.
Why is this so important? There are fans of other fictional universes who are very happy.
Then again, someone has pointed out that these are all just fiction. It seems to me that the happiest group of fans are the ones who post on Doctor Who forums, because they know there is no point in getting fussed about the consistency of the show's continuity because it may be changing everytime the Doctor lands somewhere and gets involved with the locals. The Star Wars fans were kind of happy for a while, until the new Clone Wars series started messing with what had already been "established" in previous books and comics. I've seen Star Wars and Star Trek fans proclaim their pride in their franchise of choice on the grounds that it is internally consistent. This is a pathway towards unhappiness.
An author a few years ago opened a Doctor Who novel thusly: "Every word of fiction is true." Arguably, that's not necessarily true, but it could be. I look at it this way, any work of fiction can be true for the person enjoying it, in the moment that they are experiencing it. I've seen the new Star Trek movie, and in the days and months following that, I've watched episodes of the old series, and enjoyed them on their individual merits. I've enjoyed reading through the old Marvel Star Wars comics, and believe me there is a very strange version of Jabba the Hut in those stories. And because I hate all of the stupid retconning to get around perceived awkwardness, I read them, and take them at face value in the moment. Within the confines of that comic series, Jabba is a humanoid walrus. Believe me.
Does anyone complain about how there are vastly different versions of continuity for G.I. Joe in it's original marvel comic run, compared to the animated series, or the new movie (which I found to be a drastic departure, but no one else cares, do they, so why should I?) What about Transformers? There's some pretty big differences going on there, between comics, animated series, and the new live action movies. How many times has the origin of Superman get retold in just the comics alone? There are several additional versions of his origin between all the TV shows, and the movie series. These franchises are reinvigorated by being reimagined, retooled, rebooted, and told anew.
Some people have complained that the writers of the new Star Trek shouldn't have even bothered with showing how the old universe still exists in relationship to a potential new version of history. I actually think this would have been a worthwhile way of doing it, but I confess I do like the time travel antics, and Nero was interesting enough as a villain, but just as interesting as an adversarial temporal incursion. The only thing that matters is giving writers room to take the original Star Trek crew in new and potentially more meaningful directions. I'm not saying the old crew weren't taken in meaningful directions, they were. But now there is the potential to take things further along than they ever could be.
The point is about maximizing the potential of the characters and situations. A writer just can't be expected to memorize all the stuff that is contained in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, just so they can get all the details right! It's great stuff if it inspires a writer to think up a new story idea, but it's junk if it hinders the storytelling process because the details aren't exactly right.
Regardless of whether we follow on the logic the new movie graciously offers us for believing the old universe still exists, think about it: when your watching an old episode, at that very moment, doesn't it exist for you, in a sense? We know that it's fiction, but when we're in the moment it kind of exists, doesn't it? And then you can go back to the new movie, loath the possibility that it just overwrote the old universe, then go back and watch an old episode and once more, be in the moment.
This is suppose to be fun! When your watching or reading something, let yourself believe in it! When your not watching it, ponder on discontinuities, and, if it's fun, try and come up with your own explanation for inconsistencies. And if there's no reconciling it, set it aside and remind yourself that it's all fiction. And then let yourself be absorbed by the story when you read or watch it the next time.
Why is this so important? There are fans of other fictional universes who are very happy.
Last edited:
No, the "prime" universe as they would have you call it, does not exist. There is only one timeline, and if the past is changed then the future is erased, there's hours of evidence in Trek to prove this.
The clearest and most damning evidence is Yesterday's Enterprise. Enterprise-C travels through a tear in time-space (just like Spock and Nero!) and the existing timeline of the Enterprise-D is altered.
We know this is not just another reality because Guinan retains an instinctual understanding of their original existence.
Further, the events of the altered reality have a direct impact on the restored timeline after the Ent-C returns to the past. The offspring of Tasha Yar.
---
In dramatic terms, redefining Trek's timetravel would render every time travel story the series has ever told moot. So what if the Borg take over Earth, doesn't effect us. So what if Edith dies, doesn't effect us. So what if the whales... no that still works.
And one line of dialogue in Trek XI, "An alternate reality," does nothing to suggest the original reality has not been supplanted.
Finally, the "theory" (read: Fantasy) of alternate realities & infinite universes only exists for one reason and one reason only; So that scientists can believe deep down inside that Back to the Future could really happen.
The clearest and most damning evidence is Yesterday's Enterprise. Enterprise-C travels through a tear in time-space (just like Spock and Nero!) and the existing timeline of the Enterprise-D is altered.
We know this is not just another reality because Guinan retains an instinctual understanding of their original existence.
Further, the events of the altered reality have a direct impact on the restored timeline after the Ent-C returns to the past. The offspring of Tasha Yar.
---
In dramatic terms, redefining Trek's timetravel would render every time travel story the series has ever told moot. So what if the Borg take over Earth, doesn't effect us. So what if Edith dies, doesn't effect us. So what if the whales... no that still works.
And one line of dialogue in Trek XI, "An alternate reality," does nothing to suggest the original reality has not been supplanted.
Finally, the "theory" (read: Fantasy) of alternate realities & infinite universes only exists for one reason and one reason only; So that scientists can believe deep down inside that Back to the Future could really happen.
And yet we still have the Mirror Universe.
Just because it's not a result of time travel doesn't mean it can't have a similar outcome.
I mean, first off, they travelled through time through a BLACK HOLE! For all intents and purposes, they should have been destroyed, but they weren't. Who's to say they didn't emerge in an alternate universe?
Parallel worlds and time travel in trek are not one and the same though.
Trek XI was presented as a timetravel story from beginning to end. We're specifically told this was the same existing timeline until it was changed with the destruction of the Kelvin. This was no mirror universe, and there's nothing to indicate in the film otherwise.
I should add, I don't care. What I find stupid is that the filmmakers bothered with the idea in the first place. We can always tell whatever stories we want.
Trek XI was presented as a timetravel story from beginning to end. We're specifically told this was the same existing timeline until it was changed with the destruction of the Kelvin. This was no mirror universe, and there's nothing to indicate in the film otherwise.
I should add, I don't care. What I find stupid is that the filmmakers bothered with the idea in the first place. We can always tell whatever stories we want.
Well, with the power of my imagination, I am perfectly willing to accept that both realities still exist. I don't give a shit about "time travel rules." Time travel works according to the demands of the plot. And while the plot may not have flat out said that the original universe still exists, it also never said anything about it being destroyed.
Well, the future is a much more tolerant place.
If you could travel back in time in your own universe, you could create a grandfather paradox. You can't resolve this paradox (that's why it is one), so logically, you simply can't travel back in time in your own universe, just like you can't divide through zero. If they didn't say so on the show, maybe the characters weren't aware of it. After all, they often complained about migraines in connection with temporal mechanics...
Every time you think you are timetraveling, you are actually hopping universes, emerging at a point in that universe's timeline that is analogous to a certain point in time in your original universe, so that it seems you traveled "back". Actually, you're still in the present, only that the original universe's present and the parallel universe's present aren't the same.
And for people who feel the need to remind me that this is fiction: I know. But when discussing things inside that fictional universe's reality, I'm not going to insert "fictional" after every other word, because it would make the post unreadable. Just assume that I'm not that deluded to think we're discussing our reality.
Perhaps I should make this my sig. Would save a lot of typing in every third post...
Every time you think you are timetraveling, you are actually hopping universes, emerging at a point in that universe's timeline that is analogous to a certain point in time in your original universe, so that it seems you traveled "back". Actually, you're still in the present, only that the original universe's present and the parallel universe's present aren't the same.
And for people who feel the need to remind me that this is fiction: I know. But when discussing things inside that fictional universe's reality, I'm not going to insert "fictional" after every other word, because it would make the post unreadable. Just assume that I'm not that deluded to think we're discussing our reality.
Perhaps I should make this my sig. Would save a lot of typing in every third post...
Neither reality is real. Worry about your own reality.
Similar threads
